1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2652 OF 1998. Munwar Chandsaheb Laddaf, Age 42 years, Occ.Service, R/o Near Water Tank, Shivshankar Colony, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, through Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, advocate for the State. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 02.08.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner prays for direction for Respondents to grant pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300/-, from the date on which he is posted as Technical Assistant. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed by Respondent No.2 as Class IV employee in the year 1970. The petitioner was promoted as Clerk in the year 1983. According to the petitioner in the year 1992, the post was converted into the post of Technical Assistant and since then he is working as Technical Assistant. The petitioner contends that though the post of Technical Assistant is given to the petitioner, he has not been given pay-scale of the said post. The petitioner further contends that Takrarniwaran Committee had recommended the case of the petitioner. 3. Mr.Kulkarni, submits that since the petitioner has actually worked as Technical Assistant, he is entitled to the same pay-scale as is given by the State Government to the 3 Technical Assistants. He submits that different pay-scale for same work by the State Government and Corporation would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that his case ought to have been considered in view of unreported judgment in W.P.No. 1617/1986, in the case of "N.C.Desai Vs. Sardar Patel College of Engg.and others.". 4. Smt.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Corporation submits that there is no sanctioned post of Technical Assistant in the establishment of Municipal Corporation, however, only nomenclature of the post of Clerk on the establishment of Library of the Municipal Corporation were converted to Technical Assistant. 5. From the perusal of the record, it would reveal that the order dated 25.11.1992 by which the petitioner was posted Technical Assistant specifically states that though the name of the designation is shown as Technical Assistant, the pay-scale would remain unchanged. 4 The petitioner has accepted this order without any demur. 6. As has already been pointed out, there is no sanctioned post of Technical Assistant on the establishment of Municipal Corporation. The contention that the persons in the State Government working in the cadre of Technical Assistant receive higher pay-scale and by depriving the petitioner of the same is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is without substance. The service conditions of the State Government and service conditions of the employees of the Corporation are not alike. In any case since the petitioner has willingly accepted with the order complete knowledge that there would be no change in the pay-scale, we can not be permitted to say that he is entitled to higher pay-scale. 7. In so far as judgment of "N.C.Desai Vs. Sardar Patel College of Engg.and others" (supra) is concerned, the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, 5 the petitioner therein was promoted as Assistant Librarian. He was subsequently reverted but however, that reversion order was recalled and thereafter again he was reposted as Assistant Librarian. Inspite of the petitioner being working on the post of Assistant Librarian, the Director of Technical Education vide its letter dated 15.4.1988 had directed the Management that the petitioner is not entitled to salary of the Assistant Librarian as he was not qualified. However, during the pendency of the communication dated 20.3.1997, the Director of Technical Education had informed the Management that the petitioner in fact was qualified. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the pay-scale of Assistant Librarian. In that view of the matter,no merit is found in the matter. The petition is dismissed. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp265298 6