H.S.Vaid vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

Through the medium of this writ petition the petitioner, who is Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor in Government Polytechnic College, Jammu,

prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs17002900 to the

petitioner/Demonstrator (Drawing Instructor), Polytechnic College, Jammu w.e.f. 14th November, 84;

With a further prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary in accordance with

difference of salary or on the basis of revised grade, as above, and to pass any other direction which is just and proper in the circumstances of the

case.

The fact in brief which have given rise to the present case are that the petitioner is an employee and is born on the establishment of Polytechnic,

Jammu (Technical Education Department). The petitioner is holding and discharging the functions of the post of Demonstrator in the pay scale of

Rs.13002550. The basic qualification prescribed for the post of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor is three years' Diploma or Degree in

Engineering, while the basic qualification for workshop Instructor is one year ITI Instructor is a superior and higher category post than the

Workshop Instructor for obvious reasons.

That the workshop Instructors of Polytechnic Jammu, which carried pay scale of Rs.600925 (prerevised), preferred a writ petition which came

to be registered as Writ petition No. 392 of 1992, and by the modus of said writ petition the petitioners in that petition claimed 'equal pay for equal

work' for all workshop Instructors, whether they were working in Industrial Training Institute, Jammu or Polytechnic Jammu. The said writ was

allowed by judgment the post of workshop Instructor has been made to carry a pay scale of Rs.8251240(prerevised) and Rs.15502550(revised)

by the order of the government. It is further averred that the grant of higher pay scales of Rs.8251240 (15502550 revised) or Workshop

Instructor gave them an edge over Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors in the pay scale of Rs.13002550, though the latter post i.e. the post of

Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor is superior and higher than that of Workshop Instructor. The revision of pay as per directions in the writ petition

has made the post of workshop Instructors as a superior, higher and exalted post than that of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor, which the

petitioner is holding.

In order to understand the controversy in its correct perspective, the petitioner has demonstrator in his petition the comparative statement/table

showing the payscales which were being drawn by the persons working as Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors and by the persons working as

Workshop Instructors. The table is given hereunder:

1968

1972

1982

Interim

Latest order

Proposed

Demonstrator

Drawing Instructor

150400 340700

6801240

13002550

Workshop

Instructor

100230220430

600925825124015502550

It is further averred that in view of the accompanied statement of the payscale which were being drawn by the Demonstrator/Drawing Instructors

as compared to Workshop Instructors and the pay revision (which have been defected in the light of the judgment) given in the writ petition, the

workshop Instructors have been placed in the pay scale of 15502550, and, thus, it has resulted and culminated in lowering the post of

Demonstrator/Drawing Instructors, which earlier was having the higher pay than that of Workshop Instructor and the same is not only unfair but

also discriminatory.

It is further averred that the qualification required and prescribed for the post of Demonstrators/Drawing Instructor is three years' Diploma in

Engineering or equivalent qualification in Engineering, while the qualification for the post of Workshop Instructor is one year training course from

ITI, even with middle pass. So on all canons of judicial conscienceness and equities the Demonstrators/Drawing Instructor must be accorded

preponderating weight and better treatment in the matter of fixation of pay as it required higher qualification and pay than that of Workshop

Instructors, who require only a middle pass with one year training from ITI. So the post of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor is obviously higher in

status, category and cadre than that of Workshop Instructor. The pay scales must commensurate with the status of the post and in any case it

should be higher than the post of Workshop Instructor. The post of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor carries higher, greater and more

responsibilities, duties and liabilities than that of Workshop Instructors. The status, nature, class and category of the Demonstrator is higher,

superior and better than that of Workshop Instructor has been allocated and given a pay scale of Rs.15502550 and, as compared to this pay

scale, the post of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor carried and remained stagnated at lower pay scale of Rs.13002550. There is absolutely no

rational reasons, logic and justification for denying to the petitioner (and Demonstrator/ Drawing Instructors as a class), the higher pay scales than

the post of Workshop Instructor, which in no case should be less than the pay scales and grades which are being given to Workshop Instructors.

A cursory view of the abovenoted tabulation showing the comparative pays, it is evident on comparison of pay scales of

Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors and Workshop Instructors that at all relevant times the Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors enjoyed a higher

pay scale throughout and, as such, the Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors are legitimately entitled to the grant of higher pay scale in the same

ratio/proportion as they had been getting in comparison with the Workshop Instructors.

The respondents state though served and were given opportunity to file counter, but they did not file any counter. However, today while arguing

the matter the counsel for Respondent State, Mr. Baldev Singh admitted that Writ petition No. 392 of 1982 titled ""Om Prakash Sabarwal &

Others Vs. State of J&K & others"" has been allowed by this court by judgment passed on November, 14' 1984; wherein this court on the anology

of principle of ""equal pay for equal work' deductible from Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution, made it properly applicable to the cases of

unequal scales of pay based on irrational classification though those drawing the different pay scales do identical works under the same employer,

and rely having been made in 1984 SC 541 and 1982 SC 879. It has been held by the court:

It is, therefore, manifestly clear that persons employed under the same employer doing identical jobs and nature of their duty being the same,

cannot be given different pay scales. From the fact pleaded in the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith, I have no hesitation in saying

that the petitioners are entitled to get the pay scales of Workshop Instructors employed in Industrial Training Institute of respondent No.2. The

Workshop Instructors of the Industrial Training Institute are drawing pay scales of 8251240 although their duties are identical with the duties which

is being performed by the petitioners but the petitioners are being paid pay scale of Rs.600925 only. This is clearly discriminatory and violates the

petitioner's right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and this is also volatile of Article 39 of the Constitution. Directive Principles of the

State policy may not be justifiable but they are to be observed by the State in order to achieve the goal set by the Constitution for the citizen of

India. The case of the petitioners is fully covered by the aforesaid two authorities of the Supreme Court and this court has no option but to issue

the common in their favour.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed, and a writ of mandamus is issued in favour of the petitioners directing the respondents to

pay the petitioners pay scale of Rs.8.251240 equal to the pay scale of Workshop Instructors of the Industrial Training Institutes. This order will,

however, operate prospectively.

Mr. Baldev Singh, counsel for the respondent State, admits at the bar that the case of the petitioner is also fully covered not only by the

judgment, which has been quoted hereinabove, but also by the judgment of the Apex Court in this behalf. It is also submitted that in the present

case the person of the petitioner is on stranger wicket than the petitioners in the case (supra).

In the case in hand the persons of the Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors were having higher pay scales as per their service cadre and as per

the qualification required for appointment in the said cadre. Admittedly, the appointments to the post of Demonstrators/ Drawing Instructor are

made on the basis of higher qualification, higher responsibilities and the said post is superior than that of workshop Instructor and that is why right

from the inception of service in 1968 the person of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructors were put on a higher grade than those of Workshop

Instructors, and at all relevant times whenever there have been pay revision, grade revisions, the pay of Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors has

been higher than that of Workshop Instructors. The anomaly in the pay perity has arisen when the persons of Workshop Instructs succeeded in

their writ petition No. 392 of 1982, cited above, that their pay position has enhanced and they have been on a higher scale of pay than that of

Demonstrators. This has not only created anomaly but also inequality in the status and the comparative pay drawls of the person serving as

Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors visà vis Workshop Instructors. The persons with higher responsibility, higher qualification and working on

exalted post as on date are drawing lesser pay and grade than the persons working under the same employer with lower qualification, lower

responsibilities but different assignments. The person of the petitioner is having more responsibilities and better status than that of the Workshop

Instructors but is getting lesser pay and this parity is to be removed all canons of judicial conscience demand and even the canons of equity and

fairness tilts in favour of the petitioner to grant the relief as prayed for by him.

In the light of observations made hereinabove, the petitioner succeeds in the writ. The writ as such is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued

in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents to pay the petitioner the pay scales comparatively higher than that of the Workshop Instructors

as per tabulation, shown above, in the pay scale of Rs.17002900 w.e.f. 14th November, 1984 the date when the writ petition was allowed in

favour of the petitioners i.e. the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 392/82 titled ""Om Prakash Sabarwal & others Vs. State of J&K & others"", and

correspondingly the revisions effected in the said pay scales by also given effect to till date; and a writ of mandamus is further issued directing the

respondents to pay the petitioner the arrears of salary on the basis of revised scales of pay to which the petitioner has become entitled from the

date the Workshop Instructors, who were drawing pay in the lower grade, have been given revised grades of Rs.15002550.

The petition as such disposed of accordingly.