1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 42 of 2009 Reserved on: 5.1.2010. Decided on: March 30, 2010. State of H.P. and others ..Appellants Versus Mohan Lal ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No. For the Appellants: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy AG. For the respondent: Mr. Lokinder Thakur, Advocate. Justice R.B. Misra,J. Heard Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 9.1.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.2020 of 2008, whereby the respondent was to be 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. 3. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. It appears that writ petitioner / respondent is working as Distributor in the Printing Press 2 of the appellant’s-Department. Initially he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 325-495 which was revised to Rs. 810-1440 w.e.f. 1.1.1986, whereas, the pay scale of Distributor / Type Supplier, deployed in the Printing & Stationery Department of State of Himachal Pradesh, was revised from Rs. 325-495 to Rs. 950-180 w.e.f. 8.2.1989. The respondent/ writ petitioner contended that he has been discharging the same duties which are being discharged by the Distributors in the Department of Printing & Stationery, but he is being discriminated by the appellant herein by not granting scale of Rs. 950-1800. 4. The reply on behalf of the appellant was filed before learned Single Judge. As per the assertions made in the counter affidavit the pay scales initially revised were made applicable to H.P. Forest Department, Press Kalaghat and its further revision is not applicable to this Press. The representation of the staff of Forest Printing Press, Kalaghat, for giving them revision of pay scale at par with H.P. Government Printing Press, was sent to the State Government, but the same was rejected being out of Punjab pay scale pattern. The pay scale allowed to the technical posts in HP Printing Press are at par with the corresponding posts in Printing & Stationery Department in Punjab. The entity of H.P. Government Press and that of other Departmental Presses has no parity. The Printing Press with the Department of Forest farming & conservation, State of Himachal Pradesh is merely a unit engaged in ordinary printing, whereas, the printing press with the Printing and Stationery Department, Himachal Pradesh is highly sophisticated press engaged in all kinds of printing including coloured printing. The H.P. Government Press is a big entity catering to the requirements of entire 3 Government, whereas the Departmental Presses are very small entities. H.P. Government Press has a larger cadre of technical posts of various kinds, whereas, other departmental Presses have smaller cadre of same category of posts. There is thus no equality of work involved. 5. Besides above submissions, the appellant i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh have not submitted anything more before Learned Single Judge. The appellants herein have never asserted that there was different eligibility criteria, different qualification, different mode of selection and different work being discharged by the Distributor deployed in Printing Press of Forest Department in comparison to that of Distributor deployed in Government Press of State Government. If some different material & facts were available, the same could have been placed before Learned Single Judge by way of review even. 6. On the basis of averments and contentions made by the respondent/ writ petitioner and the rival contentions of appellants, learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order dated 9.1.2009 as below:- “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 4 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. 950-180 is arbitrary.” 7. Learned Single Judge has also referred a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, 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 inhabitation against discrimination in Articles 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” has status of fundamental right.” 8. In State of Punjab and Another Versus Surjit Singh and others, 2009 (9) SCC 514, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the cases of daily wagers of Public Health Department of State of Punjab who were claiming parity with their counterparts in different departments on the basis of having worked for a considerable period of time and being similarly situated, however, the High Court had allowed them the pay on basis of minimum of pay scale with DA. on the parity basis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied blindly. As has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh (supra), in the matter of “equal pay for equal work”, multiple factors including equal work, equal value, source and manner 5 of appointment, equal identity of group and wholesale or complete identity is required. In reference to the group of persons with whom parity is being claimed are to be looked into. The question always arises in each case as to how principle of “equal pay for equal work” is to be applied in different facts and situations. It was further observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the finding of High Court and proof of various factors are to be adhered and in the matter of parity in employment the mode and manner of appointment is to be considered as relevant factor for invocation of doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Versus Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, 2009 (13) SCC 635, has further reiterated the above principle by observing that doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Similarity in designation or nature of quantum of work is not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scale. Court has to consider the factors like source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualification, nature of work, value thereof, responsibility, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need etc. Equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scale only when there is wholesale identity between holders of two posts. 10. In view of above settled position of law, while making the applicability of the above mentioned decisions in the present case, we find that the appellants have not contended anything about the different mode of appointment and selection, qualification, work responsibility, educational qualification, in respect of the appointment of Distributor in Printing Press of Forest Department in comparison to 6 other printing presses of other Departments with those of Distributors in Government Printing Press of H.P. State. If any, different parameters were available the same could have been highlighted through the counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge. Such factors if existed could have also been brought to the notice of learned Single Judge for reviewing its verdict dated 9.1.2009. In absence of anything argued contrary, it would be presumed that the respondent is discharging the same and similar duty as being discharged by his counter-parts in Printing & Stationery Department of State of H.P. and the educational qualification, eligibility criteria, mode and modelty of selection and work & responsibility is same and the respondent is discharging the same work as such. The observation of learned Single Judge to this effect need no interference. 11. In our considered view, the decision of learned Single Judge dated 9.1.2009 has been arrived at on the basis of material on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such the respondent is 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%. The appeal being devoid of any merits is dismissed. ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge March 30,2010 ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (Purohit) Judge