IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.666 of 1998 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV, son of late Hira Rai, resident of Mohalla Mainpura, P S – Patliputra, District – Patna at present fireman in the Department of Finance and also President of Sachivalaya Bhawan Sthapana Agni Shamak Sangh, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Brij Bihari Prasad, son of late Ram Janam Sah, resident of Mohalla Mohanpur (Punaichak), P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna, at present Fireman, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar and also Secretary of Sachivalaya Bhawan, Sthapana Agni Shamak Sangh, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Additional Finance Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. Chief Care-taker, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ----------- Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. N P Singh. Counsel for the State: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, SC 21 and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, AC to SC 21. ------- 13. 24.8.2010 Writ was filed in a representative capacity by the two petitioners who were working as fire-men under the Department of Finance in the State Secretariat. There is no dispute that the appointment of the petitioners or their so-called members of the association was under the Finance Department. But looking at the nature of their job and the skill and expertise required to perform such job in times of need, the State Government vide policy decision dated 7.1.1998 decided to put the services of 22 such persons under the administrative control of the Bihar State Fire Officer. This was done to expose the members of the association to fire fighting exercise for which they were engaged by the Finance Department. Writ was filed seeking two reliefs – one that in terms of the notification contained in annexure-2, deployment of the petitioners 2 or such members of the petitioner’s association with the Fire Brigade authorities amounted to deputation and they were entitled to deputation allowance. Secondly it is also prayed that since they worked arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder with the other firemen of the Fire Brigade Department, they should be given equal pay for equal work. Stand of the respondent State is that deployment of the firemen working under the Finance Department under the administrative control of the Fire Brigade Department itself does not amount to deputation. The said notification stood clarified by a subsequent corrigendum, which was issued on 2.3.1998 and has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The claim of the petitioners therefore for payment of deputation allowance in view of the corrigendum is misplaced. With regard to the claim for equal pay for equal work, counsel for the State submits that they were not working under the Fire Brigade Department as firemen under the organization. There work and responsibility continued to be with the Finance Department. They were paid their salary and other emoluments by the Finance Department and there was no change in the nature of the responsibility for which they were appointed by the Finance Department. It is just that for better exposure, training or utilization of these firemen, they were put under the administrative control of the Chief Fire Officer and putting them under the administrative control cannot be interpreted to mean that they became firemen under the Fire Brigade Department. From the narration of facts in the writ application coupled 3 with the stand of the State, the claim of the petitioners for equal pay for equal work seems to be misplaced because at no point of time their responsibility, assignment of work or the nature of duty which they required to perform under the Finance Department underwent a change. The Finance Department never lost control over these petitioners or their members. Only to ensure their proper training, alertness and to keep their ability at the peak, they were put under the Chief Fire Officer’s administrative control. That by itself does not make out a case either for payment of deputation allowance or equal pay for equal work. The writ application seems to be misplaced, both on facts and law. It is dismissed but without cost. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)