IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2913/2008 Reserved on:31.7.2009 Decided on: 21.8.2009 ________________________________________________ Des Raj. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. …Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate ________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge . The petitioner was appointed as a Store Keeper in the respondent-Board with effect from 24.1.1990. He is claiming salary at the pay scale of Rs. 1000/- from the date of his appointment i.e. 24.1.1990 on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. It is, inter alia, contended by the petitioner that though he was appointed as a Store Keeper, he had been discharging the duties of Meter Reader/Billing Clerk from the first date of his appointment. The case of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 the respondent-Board is that the petitioner has been permitted to work as a Meter Reader/Billing Clerk in exigency of service on his oral request. According to the respondent-Board, the petitioner is not entitled to the salary of the post of Meter Reader/Billing Clerk. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client had been performing the duties of Meter Reader/Billing Clerk from the date of his initial appointment and is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1000/- with effect from 24.1.1990. He has relied upon Annexures A-1 to A-3. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board has argued that since the petitioner had worked as a Billing Clerk/Meter Reader at his own request, he is not entitled to the basic pay scale of Rs. 1000/- payable to the Billing Clerk/Meter Reader. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. A bare perusal of Annexures A-1 to A-3 reveals that the petitioner had been working and discharging the duties of Billing Clerk/Meter Reader. The pay scale of Billing Clerk/Meter Reader is Rs. 1000/-. The pay scale of Store Keeper is Rs. 800/-. The respondent-Board has admitted in para 1 (c) of the reply under heading ‘preliminary objections’ that though the petitioner had been working as Billing Clerk/Meter Reader, but it was on his verbal request. The respondent-Board has also admitted in its reply that the staffing norms of store keeping staff were revised by the respondent- Board vide office order No.19 dated 6.3.1991 and as such the post of Store Helper became surplus. According to the Board, the petitioner 3 made a verbal request for his adjustment in the office and the Board permitted him to assist in office work. The petitioner has placed tangible material on record to establish that though he was appointed Store Helper, however, he had been discharging the duties of Billing Clerk/Meter Reader. The Board has also admitted that the petitioner had been working as a Billing Clerk/Meter Reader, as noticed above. The other ground for denying the benefit of the salary of the post of Billing Clerk/Meter Reader to the petitioner is that he had been drawing and enjoying the benefits of pay and perks as Store Helper, including dress etc. In these circumstances, the action of the respondent-Board to deny the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 1000/- with effect from 24.1.1990 till the issuance of Annexure A-5 dated 7.8.1995 is unreasonable and arbitrary thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The employer cannot exploit the workman. In the present case, since the petitioner has worked against the post of Billing Clerk/Meter Reader, he is entitled to initial salary of Rs. 1,000/- on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. However, the Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure A-5) whereby the petitioner has been re-posted in Store Section with immediate effect. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala versus B. Renjith Kumar and others, (2008) 12 SCC 219 have held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has assumed the status of fundamental right. Their Lordships have held as under: “13. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of this Court. The doctrine of "equal pay 4 for equal work" was originally propounded as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Thus, having regard to the Constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Articles 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" has assumed the status of fundamental right. (see Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305].” In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner salary of the post of Billing Clerk/Meter Reader with effect from 24.1.1990 till 6.8.1995 with interest @ 7% per annum within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 21.8.2009. *awasthi*