IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 2020 of 2008. Reserved on: 17.12.2008. Decided on: 09.01.2009. __________________________________________________________ Shri Mohan Lal … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is working as Distributor in the Printing Press of the respondent-Department. He was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 325-495 which was revised to Rs. 810-1440 with effect from 1.1.1986. However, in the Printing & Stationery Department, the pay scale of the Distributor/Type Supplier was revised from Rs. 325-495 to Rs. 950-1800 with effect from 8.2.1989. Mr. Lokender Thakur has strenuously argued that his client is discharging the same duties which are being discharged by the Distributors in the Department of Printing & Stationery. His further 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 contention is that his client has been discriminated by the respondents by not revising his pay scale to Rs. 950-1800. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the decision of the State Government. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working as Distributor in Forest Printing Press, Kalaghat. He is discharging the same and similar duties which are being discharged by the Distributors in the Printing & Stationery Department of Himachal Pradesh. The respondents have not spelt out clearly in what manner the duties discharged by the petitioner are dis-similar to the duties discharged by the Distributors in the Printing & Stationery Department. The only reason assigned by the State Government is that the printing press with the Printing & Stationery Department is highly sophisticated with colour printing. This cannot constitute a valid reason for denying the pay scale to the petitioner of the post of Distributor working in Printing & Stationery Department of Himachal Pradesh. Since the petitioner is discharging the same and similar duties being discharged by his counter-parts in the Printing & Stationery Department, he is entitled to the same pay scale. There should be uniformity in the pay scales of equal status posts available in various departments of the State Government. The action of the respondents of denying the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 is arbitrary. 3 In Union of India Vs. Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 586, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under: “The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” was originally propounded as part of the directive principles of the 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 status of a fundamental right.” Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 w.e.f. the date the same has been paid to the Distributors in the Printing & Stationery Department with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. January 09, 2009. (cr)