SBCWP NO.358/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.358/1997. P.G. Thampy Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- February 18, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Swaraj Panwar for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Mathur, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition was filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to award pay scale of Rs.950-1680 to the petitioner which is applicable to the post of Store Munshi from the date his junior Devi Singh was granted such pay scale with interest @24% p.a. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Store Munshi on 1/11/1979 on daily wage basis. He worked to the entire satisfaction of his superiors which fact has been admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Basic pay of Rs.950-1680 was applicable to the post of Store Munshi whereas SBCWP NO.358/97. 2 petitioner was illegally being paid lower pay scale of Rs.775-1025. One Shri Devi Singh who was junior to him and was appointed at later point of time was granted higher pay scale. Similarly, one Jitendera Pal Singh who was also appointed much later than petitioner on the post of Work Munshi was paid higher pay scale. Date of appointment of the petitioner is 1/11/1979 and date of appointment of Devi Singh is 1/5/1981 and in this way Devi Singh is junior to him. It is contended that the post of Store Munshi is equivalent to the post of LDC/Typist and therefore post carries same pay scale. Petitioner has been actually discharging duties of the post of Typist of English which fact is proved from the documents. Petitioner has placed on record with this petition the documents from Annexure-6 to Annexure-17. Hari Om who was also subsequently appointed was also granted higher pay scale. Petitioner made number of representations but no heed was paid therefore, he has filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that while petitioner was appointed on the post of Munshi Gr.II, persons, examples of which, were SBCWP NO.358/97. 3 given above, were appointed on the post of Munshi Gr.I. In this connection, learned counsel invited attention of the court towards their pleadings in paras 5 and 6 of the reply to writ petition wherein, it is stated that Devi Singh was appointed on 1/5/1981 on the post of Work Munshi meaning thereby, Devi Singh worked for Munshi Grade-I. Going through the pleading of para 5, it shows as if Devi Singh was appointed as Munshi Gr.I on 1/5/1981 but what the petitioner contends is that he actually was discharging against the post of Munshi Gr.I, he was declared semi permanent on the post of Munshi Gr.I but even this fact has not been corroborated from the document which has been placed on record as Annexure-2 from which, it is evident that factually even Devi Singh was also declared semi permanent on the post of Munshi Gr.II but lateron the earlier order was modified and instead he was declared semi permanent on the post of Munshi Grade-I. Even in the order with regard to Jitendra Pal Singh, which respondents placed on record the document Annexure-R/2, he was merely described as Work Munshi and yet he was given higher pay scale of the pay than the petitioner. Respondents have SBCWP NO.358/97. 4 not disputed the fact that petitioner made number of representations. They have not produced any initial appointment order of any person with whom the petitioner is claiming parity whereas, petitioner has amply demonstrated that he has been throughout working as typist which fact is evident from the number of documents which he has placed on record. The writ petition therefore, deserves to be allowed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant pay scale of Rs.950-1680 of the post of Munshi Grade-I which such pay scale was granted to Shri Devi Singh, junior to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits and arrears together with interest @6% p.a. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil