IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4625 of 2008. Reserved on:13.07. 2010. Decided on 27.07.2010. _____________________________________________________ R.K. Kashyap and others. …Petitioners. -Versus- The Himachal Pradesh State Electronics and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For respondent No. 2. : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The petitioners are working as Assistant Marketing Officers in the respondent-Corporation. The Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation in its meeting held on 31.03.1997 decided to de-link T.V. Factory Staff from Punwire Wage Pattern w.e.f. 01.04.1992 and further decided to give its employees H.P. Govt. pay scales (pay and allowances) vide office order dated 01.05.1997. The petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/-. Petitioners made representations against the pay 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. scale of Rs.1640-2925/- to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. 2. Mr. D.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that his clients are entitled to pay scale of Rs.2100-3700/- at par with Assistant Marketing Officers serving in Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing Corporation Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as “the HPMC” for brevity sake). He then contended that there is no post of Assistant Marketing Officer available in the State Government and the pay scales of his clients are required to be equated with Assistant Marketing Officers serving in HPMC. 3. Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has vehemently argued that petitioners have been granted only the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/- vide office order dated 01.05.1997 on the basis of the recommendations made by the service committee constituted by the Government for this purpose. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Petitioners are working as Assistant Marketing Officers. They have been granted the pay scale of Rs. Rs.1640- 2925/-. Mr. D.P. Gupta, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-7, dated 12th August, 1994, whereby in H.P.M.C., the Marketing Assistants have been given the pay scale of Rs.1650-2985/-, which was revised to Rs.2000-3500/-. According to the petitioners, the post of Marketing Assistant is not inferior in status vis –a-vis Assistant Marketing Officer. The petitioners are working in a separate entity, i.e., Himachal Pradesh State Electronics Development Corporation Limited. The Assistant Marketing Officers in H.P.M.C. are also working in different entity. Petitioners have not placed any tangible evidence/material on record to establish that they are discharging the same or similar duties which are being discharged by the Assistant Marketing Officers in H.P.M.C. The parity in pay scales depends on various factors, including Recruitment and Promotion Rules, qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities. The parity cannot be granted in abstract. In the present case, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is also not applicable. 6. Their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and another versus West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and others (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 225 2010 (5) 225 have held as under: “19. The principle “equal pay for equal work” is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It is dependent on various factors such as educational qualifications, nature of the jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment, etc. Comparison merely based on designation of posts is misconceived. Courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees.” 7. The burden to prove disparity was on the petitioners. They have failed to discharge this burden. It was necessary for the petitioners to give the details of their educational qualifications, nature of the job, responsibilities discharged by them and the method of recruitment, as noticed above. In the H.P.M.C., the Marketing Assistants are given the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/-. The pay scale of the Assistant Marketing Officers is higher, i.e., 2100-3700/-. The pay scale of Rs.2100-3700/- has been granted to the Assistant Marketing Officers in H.P.M.C. on the basis of recommendations made by the service committee. Petitioners have also been granted the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/- after de-linking them from Punwire Wage Pattern on the basis of the recommendations made by the service committee. It can safely be presumed that the service committee has granted the pay scale to the petitioners after taking into consideration their job problem, including education qualifications etc.. 8. Mr. D.P. Gupta, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has cited Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association versus Union of India and others (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 707. In this case, their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were dealing with discrimination in pay and other conditions of service of school teachers merely on the basis of aided school and unaided minority schools. He has also relied upon Doordarshan Cameramen’s Welfare Association (Regd.) versus Union of India and another, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 26. In this case, there was disparity in the pay scale of Staff Artists of Doordarshan Cameramen Grade-II, Sound Recordists and Lighting Assistants/Lightmen with their counterparts in Films Division. In this case, the employer was the same. In Sandeep Kumar and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 525, the issue was with regard to the parity in employment of daily rated Junior Engineers with regular hands. In K.T. Veerappa and others versus State of Karnatka and others (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406, the revision of pay was denied to the employees who did not file the writ petition. In the same judgment, their lordships have held that the fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. The Courts can only interfere if the decision is un-reasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 27, 2010. (bhupender)