Civil Writ Petition No.1952 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1952 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: September 27, 2011 Nanak Chand & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms. Savita Tanwar, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners are working as Mechanics, Turners, Painters, Welders and Electricians in the Department of Health, State of Haryana. They seek pay parity with the employees of the Transport Department/Medical Colleges, who are working on similar posts. There are Drivers with the Ministers and posts of Mechanics are there in the Transport Department. Mechanics and Drivers are also working in the various Universities in Haryana. As per the petitioners, the pay scales of Mechanics, Turners, Painters, Welders and Electricians in these departments are higher than the pay scales given to the petitioners. The petitioners also claim that their pay scales prior to 1.1.1986 were similar to the employees of the Civil Writ Petition No.1952 of 1992 -2- Transport Department. A representation was made prior to revision of the pay scales and the disparities were brought to the notice of the Department. Upon revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the representations were made for removing the anomalies. As per the petitioners, the Painters, Welders, Mechanics, Turner, Auto Electrician, working with the Medical Colleges are in the pay scales of `140-225, which is revised to `1200-2040 and so is in the case of such employees working in the Transport Department or Ministers Car Section. However, the petitioners working in the Health Department have only been allowed scale of `950-1500. This is stated to be an anomaly and the petitioners had prayed for removal of the same. They made representations in this regard. It is stated that the Medical Colleges earlier were under the Health Department and now the same service rules would apply to the employees of Health Department as are applicable to the employees of Medical Colleges. It is stated that the qualification for recruitment as Painters, Welders, Mechanics etc. are also the same, whereas higher pay scales have been given to the employees working with the Medical Colleges and their counterparts in the Health Department are getting lesser pay. It is averred that their duties are also the same. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to plead a principle of 'equal pay for equal work', which has been recognised under the law and any variation of the principles may amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Civil Writ Petition No.1952 of 1992 -3- In the reply filed, the respondents have disputed the claim. It is stated that no fundamental or constitutional right of the petitioners has been infringed. The essential qualifications prescribed for the posts of Mechanic, Turner, Painter, Welder and Auto Electrician in the Health Department as well as in the Transport Department are highlighted to submit that for Motor Mechanic, ITI certificate is essential qualification in the Transport Department whereas a Motor Mechanic in the Health Department is only required to have 6 years experience in an Automobile Engineering Workshop and ITI is only a preferable qualification. Similarly, a Turner in the Health Department is only required to have 3 years experience, whereas ITI is an essential qualification for those working in the Transport Department. After giving this distinction, it is stated that the qualification for both the departments are not similar. The work done in both the departments is also not similar. It is,accordingly, pleaded that the same pay scales cannot be allowed to the petitioners as being given to the employees of the Transport Department. There is, thus, serious dispute in regard to the factual position. Whole case set up by the petitioners is that the qualifications in both the departments are the same. This fact has been denied by the respondents. It is not appropriate for this Court to decide this disputed question of fact in regard to the nature of responsibility and so also the qualification aspect. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. This has been so observed recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Anr. Vs. West Civil Writ Petition No.1952 of 1992 -4- Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association & others, JT 2010(3) SC 148 . The broad principle laid down in this judgment is that it is not the duty of the Court to equate the posts and that the responsibility in this regard has to be left to the department or the expert body. In the case of State of West Bengal (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. It is noticed that one of the functions of the Pay Commission is to identity the post which deserves a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts. Noticing the functions to be performed by the Pay Commission, it is observed that the Commission has two functions; firstly to revise the existing pay scale by recommending revised pay scales, secondly; make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. The Court has gone to the extent of holding that the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It depends upon comparative job, evaluation of various factors. It is observed that the Courts should interfere only if the decision of Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees. As per this decision, burden to prove disparity is on the employees. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of Shil Kumar Mariya and others Vs. State Civil Writ Petition No.1952 of 1992 -5- of Punjab and others, 2009(5) SLR 39, in my view, is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. There, the petitioner was seeking equation being a Sanitary Inspector with the post of the Health Department as well as Local Self Government. The posts were the same and so as the work & qualification. That does not appear to be position here. Accordingly, no case for grant of equal pay for equal work is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 27, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE