# Bhawani Prasad Sahu & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 1204
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-14
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 167 of 2014
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhawani-prasad-sahu-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49111
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Discrimination of pay
scale - If two departments are under
control
of
one
Government
and
employees are having similar duty, no
discrimination can be made in their
salary and both sets of employees would
be governed by principal of 'equal pay
for equal work.'

Irrigation Department
and PWD are the
department of State of U.P., having equal status
headed by the Principal Secretary appointed by
the State Government. Petitioners as well as
generator operator of Irrigation Department are
performing same duty of running the generator
of over and above of 50 KVA. There is also no
difference in appointment procedure and nature
of work of petitioners and generator operators
of Irrigation Department. (Para 12)

B. While considering the case of 'equal pay
for equal work', mode of recruitment,
qualification for the post, nature of work,
value of work & responsibilities involved
and various other factors have to be taken
into consideration and Court can only
interfere where there is discrimination
between two sets of employees appointed
by the State Government. (Para 14)

Here, there is no dispute that both the
departments have equal status. Once the
employer is same, mode of recruitment,
qualification for the post, nature of work and
other responsibilities are same, Court has full
authority to interfere in the matter and such
employees shall be governed by principal of
'equal pay for equal work', and there cannot be
any denial of similar pay scale on any ground.
(Para 16)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-4)
1 All. Bhawani Prasad Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1205
Precedent followed:

## Text

1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
withdrawn from her and, further, the
authority shall ensure that retiral benefits
are released to the petitioner by treating her
to have superannuated with effect from
30.06.2018.

12. Before parting, we may notice that
the learned Single Judge in paragraph 14 of
the judgment, which remains un-rebutted,
has found another reason to non-suit the
petitioner.
The
said
paragraph
is
reproduced below:-

"14.
At
this
stage,
learned
Standing Counsel points out that petitioner
has also filed a subsequent Writ Petition
No.63782 of 2019, in which she was
permitted to make representation and the
same has also been rejected on 26.10.2020.
This subsequent order is not under
challenge. Once the claim of petitioner for
voluntary retirement is found to have been
accepted for valid reasons, any subsequent
attempt to seek its recall would otherwise
not be permissible in law. "

13. We are in respectful agreement
with the above view and for this reason
also, the appellant is not entitled to any
relief in this appeal.

14. The special appeal is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1204
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ-A No. 167 of 2014

Bhawani Prasad Sahu & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Durga Prasad Dwivedi, Sri Ashutosh
Shahi, Sri Sharad Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Discrimination of pay
scale - If two departments are under
control
of
one
Government
and
employees are having similar duty, no
discrimination can be made in their
salary and both sets of employees would
be governed by principal of 'equal pay
for equal work.'

Irrigation Department
and PWD are the
department of State of U.P., having equal status
headed by the Principal Secretary appointed by
the State Government. Petitioners as well as
generator operator of Irrigation Department are
performing same duty of running the generator
of over and above of 50 KVA. There is also no
difference in appointment procedure and nature
of work of petitioners and generator operators
of Irrigation Department. (Para 12)

B. While considering the case of 'equal pay
for equal work', mode of recruitment,
qualification for the post, nature of work,
value of work & responsibilities involved
and various other factors have to be taken
into consideration and Court can only
interfere where there is discrimination
between two sets of employees appointed
by the State Government. (Para 14)

Here, there is no dispute that both the
departments have equal status. Once the
employer is same, mode of recruitment,
qualification for the post, nature of work and
other responsibilities are same, Court has full
authority to interfere in the matter and such
employees shall be governed by principal of
'equal pay for equal work', and there cannot be
any denial of similar pay scale on any ground.
(Para 16)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-4)
1 All. Bhawani Prasad Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1205
Precedent followed:

1. Randhir Singh Vs U.O.I.& ors., (1982) 1 SCC
618 (Para 7)

2. State of Punjab & ors. Vs Jagjit Singh & ors.,
(2017) 1 SCC 148 (Para 8)

3. St. of M. P. Vs Seema Sharma, Civil Appeal
No. 3892 of 2022 (Para 9)

4. St. of Har. & anr. Vs Haryana Civil Secretariat
Personal Staff Association, (2022) 6 SCC 72
(Para 10)

Present petition assails orders dated
07.04.2011,
08.12.2010,
22.09.2009,
07.10.2010,
11.03.2011,
30.12.2011,
01.04.2012.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with
the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
7.4.2011, 8.12.2010, 22.9.2009, 7.10.2010,
11.3.2011, 30.12.2011, 1.4.2012 passed by
the opposite parties as contained at
Annexure No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7/

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to fix the
pay scale of the petitioners equal to the pay
scale of generator operator of Irrigation
Department i.e. Rs. 4000-100-Rs.6000 with
effect from 1.1.1996."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that present controversy is
arising due to discrimination of pay scale of
the similarly situated employees in two
departments of State of U.P., i.e. Public
Works Department (in short PWD) and
Irrigation Department.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that petitioners were initially
appointed as daily wager in PWD. Services
of petitioners were regularized on 2.7.2003
(wrongly typed as 2.7.2013). He next
submitted that petitioner nos. 1 to 6 were
selected and appointed from the post of
Helper to Generator Operator by the
Selection Committee whereas petitioner
nos. 7, 8 & 9 were working on the post of
Generator Operator since their initial
appointment. Presently, all petitioners were
working on the post of Generator Operator
in different divisions of PWD. He further
submitted that petitioner nos. 1, 3 & 5 are
operating the generators of 100 KVA
whereas petitioner nos. 2 & 4 are operating
generator of 320 KVA & 140 KVA
respectively. Further, petitioner nos. 8 & 9
are operating generator of 180 KVA & 100
KVA. Petitioner nos. 6 & 7 are operating
generator of 125 KVA and 62.5 KVA.

5. He next submitted that like
petitioners, there are also daily wagers
employees in Irrigation Department, later
on who have been given appointment on
the post of Generator Operator with
identical nature of work. He further
submitted
that
Irrigation
Department
bifurcated
their
work
in
two
parts
depending upon the capacity of generator,
which they are operating. The operators,
who are operating generator of 50 KVA
have been given pay scale of Rs.30504590/- whereas other operators, who are
operating generator over and above of 50
KVA are given pay scale of Rs.40006000/-. He next submitted that petitioners
as well as generator operator of Irrigation
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Department are performing same duty, but
petitioners were deprived from the pay
scale of Rs.4000-6000/- and being paid the
pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-.

6. Considering this fact that matter
was considered by the Chief Engineer,
PWD and vide letter dated 31.7.2012
recommendation
has
been
made
to
respondent no.2 to grant similar pay scale
as given to the generator operator of
Irrigation Department, but the same has not
been granted. Again, Chief Engineer, PWD
vide letters dated 25.4.2013 & 1.5.2013 had
made recommendation with similar request
to PWD, but no action has been taken. He
firmly submitted that Irrigation Department
and PWD, both are department of State of
U.P. and petitioners as well as generator
operators of Irrigation Department are
performing same work and duty, therefore,
petitioners are also entitled for same pay
scale as given to generator operators of
Irrigation
Department
running
the
generators of over and above of 50 KVA.

7. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh
vs. Union of India and others reported in
(1982) 1 SCC 618, where Apex Court has
held that if two departments are under
control of one Government and employees
are having similar duty, no discrimination
can be made in their salary and both sets of
employees would be governed by principal
of 'equal pay for equal work' and entitled
for same salary.

8. He next submitted that the same
ratio of law was again followed by the
Apex Court in the matter of State of
Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh
and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC
148.

9.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
vehemently opposed the submission and
submitted that petitioners cannot claim
parity of pay scale as a matter of right. He
next submitted that merely similarity of
designation or quantum of work cannot be
a ground for equality of pay scale. In
support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court
in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Seema Sharma passed in Civil Appeal
No. 3892 of 2022.

10. He further submitted that fixation
of pay scale and determination of parity in
duties is the function of the executive and
scope of judicial review is very limited. In
support of this contention, he has also
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana
and another vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat
Personal Staff Association reported in
2022 6 SCC 72.

11. Being confronted by the Court,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State could not dispute this fact that
Irrigation Department and PWD are the
department of State of U.P. with equal
status headed by Principal Secretary. He
also could not point out any difference
about the nature of appointment of
petitioners in PWD and other employees in
Irrigation
Department.
Other
Factual
submissions so argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioners could also not be
disputed by the learned Standing Counsel.

12. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
records. I have also gone through the
judgments relied upon by the leaned
counsel for the parties. Facts of the case are
undisputed. Irrigation Department and
1 All. Bhawani Prasad Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1207
PWD are the department of State of U.P.,
having equal status headed by the Principal
Secretary
appointed
by
the
State
Government.
Petitioners
as
well
as
generator operator of Irrigation Department
are performing same duty of running the
generator of over and above of 50 KVA.
There is also no difference in appointment
procedure and nature of work of petitioners
and generator operators of Irrigation
Department. Similar matter came before
the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P.
vs. Randheer Singh (supra) and Apex
Court has taken clear cut view that if two
departments are under control of one
Government and employees are having
similar duty, no discrimination can be made
in their salary and both sets of employees
would be governed by principal of 'equal
pay for equal work.' Relevant paragraph
nos. 8 & 9 of the said judgment are quoted
hereinbelow:-

"8. It is true that the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly
declared by our Constitution to be a
fundamental right. But it certainly is a
Constitutional
goal.
Art.39(d)of
the
Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal
work for both men and women" as a
Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal
pay for equal work for both men and
women' means equal pay for equal work for
everyone and as between the sexes.
Directive principles, as has been pointed
out in some of the judgments of this Court
have to be read into the fundamental rights
as a matter of interpretation. Art. 14of the
Constitution enjoins the state not to deny
any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws and Art.16
declares that there shall be equality of
opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to
any office under the State. These equality
clauses of the Constitution must mean some
thing to everyone. To the vast majority of
the people the equality clauses of the
Constitution would mean nothing if they
are unconcerned with the work they do and
the pay they get. To them the equality
clauses will have some substance if equal
work means equal pay. Whether the special
procedure prescribed by a statute for trying
alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings
or for dealing with tax evaders is
discriminatory,
whether
a
particular
Governmental policy in the matter of grant
of licences or permits confers unfettered
discretion on the Executive, whether the
takeover of the empires of industrial
tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional
and other questions of like nature, leave the
millions
of
people
of
this
country
untouched. Questions concerning wages
and the like, mundane they may be, are yet
matters of vital concern to them and it is
there, if at all that the equality clauses of
the Constitution have any significance to
them. The preamble to the Constitution
declares the solemn resolution of the
people of India to constitute India into a
Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic.
Again the word 'Socialist' must mean
something. Even if it does not mean 'To
each according to his need', it must atleast
mean 'equal pay for equal work'. The
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is
expressly recognized by all socialist
systems of law, e.g, Section 59 of the
Hungarian Labour. Code, para 2 of Section
111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67
of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the
Code of the German Democratic Republic,
para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code.
Indeed this principle has been incorporated
in several western labour codes too. Under
provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book
I of the French Code du Travail, and
according
to
Argentinian
law,
this
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
principle must be applied to female
workers
in
all
collective
bargaining
agreements. In accordance with Section 3
of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal
Republic, and clause 7, Section 123 of the
Mexican Constitution, the principle is given
universal significance (vide: International
Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy p. 265). The
preamble of the Constitution of the
International
Labour
Organisation
recognises
the
principle
of
'equal
remuneration for work of equal value' as
constituting one of the means of achieving
the improvement of conditions "involving
such injustice, hardship and privation to
large numbers of people as to produce
unrest so great that the peace and harmony
of the world are imperilled". Construing
Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the
Preamble and Art.39(d)we are of the view
that the principle 'Equal pay for Equal
work' is deducible from those Article and
may be properly applied to cases of
unequal scales of pay based on no
classification or irrational classification
though these drawing the different scales of
pay do idential work under the same
employer.

9. There cannot be the slightest
doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police
Force perform the same functions and
duties as other drivers in service of the
Delhi Administration and the Central
Government. If anything, by reason of their
investiture with the 'powers, functions and
privileges of a police officer', their duties
and responsibilities are more arduous. In
answer to the allegation in the petition that
the driver-constables of the Delhi Police
Force perform no less arduous duties than
drivers in other departments, it was
admitted by the respondents in their
counter that the duties of the driverconstables of the Delhi Police Force were
onerous. What then is the reason for giving
them a lower scale of pay than others ?
There is none. The only answer of the
respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi
Police Force and the other drivers belong
to different departments and that the
principle of equal pay for equal work is not
a principle which the Courts may recognise
and act upon. We have shown that the
answer is unsound. The clarification is
irrational. We, therefore, allow the Writ
Petition and direct the respondents to fix
the scale of pay of the petitioner and the
drivers-constables of the Delhi Police
Force atleast on a par with that of the
drivers of the Railway Protection Force.
The scale of pay shall be effective from 1st
January, 1973, the date from which the
recommendations of the Pay Commission
were given effect."

13. In the matter of State of Punjab
and others Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra), same
factum of law is expressed in detail by the
Apex Court. Relevant paragraph no. 42.3 &
60 of the said judgment are quoted
hereinbelow:-

"The principle of ''equal pay for
equal work', applies to cases of unequal
scales of pay, based on no classification or
irrational classification (see - the Randhir
Singh case1). For equal pay, the concerned
employees with whom equation is sought,
should be performing work, which besides
being functionally equal, should be of the
same quality and sensitivity (see - the
Federation of All India Customs and
Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized)
case3, the Mewa Ram Kanojia case5, the
Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case6
and the S.C. Chandra case.

57. Having traversed the legal
parameters
with
reference
to
the
1 All. Bhawani Prasad Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1209
application of the principle of ''equal pay
for equal work', in relation to temporary
employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual
basis, contractual employees and the like),
the
sole
factor
that
requires
our
determination is, whether the concerned
employees
(before
this
Court),
were
rendering
similar
duties
and
responsibilities, as were being discharged
by
regular
employees,
holding
the
same/corresponding posts. This exercise
would require the application of the
parameters of the principle of ''equal pay
for equal work' summarized by us in
paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as
the instant aspect of the matter is
concerned, it is not difficult for us to record
the factual position. We say so, because it
was fairly acknowledged by the learned
counsel representing the State of Punjab,
that all the temporary employees in the
present bunch of appeals, were appointed
against posts which were also available in
the regular cadre/establishment. It was
also accepted, that during the course of
their employment, the concerned temporary
employees were being randomly deputed to
discharge duties and responsibilities, which
at some point in time, were assigned to
regular
employees.
Likewise,
regular
employees holding substantive posts, were
also posted to discharge the same work,
which
was
assigned
to
temporary
employees, from time to time. There is,
therefore, no room for any doubt, that the
duties and responsibilities discharged by
the temporary employees in the present set
of appeals, were the same as were being
discharged by regular employees. It is not
the case of the appellants, that the
respondent-employees did not possess the
qualifications prescribed for appointment
on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the
case of the State, that any of the temporary
employees would not be entitled to pay
parity, on any of the principles summarized
by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There
can be no doubt, that the principle of
''equal pay for equal work' would be
applicable to all the concerned temporary
employees, so as to vest in them the right to
claim wages, at par with the minimum of
the
pay-scale
of
regularly
engaged
Government employees, holding the same
post."

14. Respondents have also relied upon
the judgment of Apex Court in the matter
of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sushma
Sharma (supra). Apex Court held that
while considering the case of 'equal pay for
equal
work',
mode
of
recruitment,
qualification for the post, nature of work,
value of work & responsibilities involved
and various other factors has to be taken
into consideration and Court can only
interfere where there is discrimination
between two sets of employees appointed
by the State Government. Here, there is no
dispute that both the department are having
equal
status,
mode
of
recruitment,
qualification for the post, nature of work,
value of work and responsibilities etc., are
also same, therefore, Court has full
authority to interfere in the matter. In fact,
this judgment is in favour of petitioner.
Relevant paragraph nos.18 & 23 of the
same are quoted hereinbelow:

"18. In Ramesh Chandra Bajpai
(supra), this Court further held that it was
well-settled that the doctrine of equal pay
for equal work could only be invoked when
the
employees
were
similarly
circumstanced
in
every
way.
Mere
similarity of designation or similarity or
quantum of work was not determinative of
equality in the matter of pay scales. The
Court had to consider all the relevant
1210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
factors such as the mode of recruitment,
qualifications for the post, the nature of
work, the value of work, responsibilities
involved and various other factors.

23. The fixation of scales of pay is
a matter of policy, with which the Courts
can only interfere in exceptional cases
where there is discrimination between two
sets of employees appointed by the same
authority, in the same manner, where the
eligibility criteria is the same and the
duties are identical in every aspect."

15. Respondents have also relied
another judgment of Apex Court in the
matter of State of Haryana and another vs.
Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff
Association (supra) and this judgment is
also in favour of petitioners. In the said
judgment, Apex Court has held that
ordinarily courts will not enter upon the ask
of job evaluation which is generally left to
expert bodies like the Pay Commissions,
etc., but that is not to say that the Court has
no
jurisdiction
and
the
aggrieved
employees have no remedy, if they are
unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or
inaction. Here the facts are undisputed that
the status of both the employees are equal,
therefore, Court has full right to intervene
in the matter. Relevant paragraph nos. 9 &
10 are quoted hereinbelow:-

"This Court in the case of
Secretary, Finance Department vs. West
Bengal Registration Service Association
and Ors., [1993] Supp I SCC 153, dealing
with the question of equation of posts and
equation
of
salaries
of
government
employees,
made
the
following
observations :

"We do not consider it necessary
to traverse the case law on which reliance
has been placed by counsel for the
appellants as it is well settled that equation
of posts and determination of pay scales is
the primary function of the executive and
not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily
courts will not enter upon the ask of job
evaluation which is generally left to expert
bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But
that is not to say that the Court has no
jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees
have no remedy if they are unjustly treated
by arbitrary State action or inaction.
Courts must, however, realize that job
evaluation is both a difficult and time
consuming task which even expert bodies
having the assistance of staff with requisite
expertise have found difficult to undertake
sometimes on account of want of relevant
data
and
scales
for
evaluating
performances
of
different
groups
of
employees. This would call for a constant
study of the external comparisons and
internal relativities on account of the
changing nature of job requirements. The
factors which may have to be kept in view
for job evaluation may include (i) the work
programme of his department (ii) the
nature of contribution expected of him (iii)
the extent of his responsibility and
accountability of the discharge of his
diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent
and
nature
of
freedoms/
limitations
available or imposed on him in the
discharge of his duties (v) the extent of
powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his
dependence on superiors for the exercise of
his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate
with other departments, etc. We have also
referred to the history of service and the
effort of various bodies to reduce the total
number of pay scales to a reasonable
number. Such reduction in the number of
pay scales has to be achieved by resorting
to broadbanding of posts by placing
different posts having comparable job
1 All. Bhawani Prasad Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1211
charts in a common scale. Substantial
reduction in the number of pay scales must
inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and
grades which were earlier different and
unequal. While doing so care must be taken
to ensure that such rationalization of the
pay structure does not throw up anomalies.
Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved
keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (i)
method of recruitment, (ii) level at which
recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of
service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum
educational/technical
qualifications
required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the
nature of the duties and responsibilities,
(vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities
with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix)
satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to
pay, etc. We have referred to these matters
in some detail only to emphasise that
several factors have to be kept in view
while evolving a pay structure and the
horizontal and vertical relativities have to
be carefully balanced keeping in mind the
hierarchical arrangements, avenues for
promotion, etc, Such a carefully evolved
pay structure ought not to be ordinarily
disturbed as it may upset the balance and
cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as
well. It is presumably for this reason that
the Judicial Secretary who had strongly
recommended a substantial hike in the
salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second
(State) Pay Commission found it difficult to
concede
the
demand
made
by
the
Registration Service before him in his
capacity as the Chairman of the Third
(State)
Pay
Commission.
There
can
therefore, be no doubt that equation of
posts and equation of salaries is a complex
matter which is best left to an expert body
unless there is cogent material on record to
come to a firm conclusion that a grave
error had crept in while fixing the pay
scale for a given post and Court's
interference is absolutely necessary to undo
the injustice.

It is to be kept in mind that the
claim of equal pay for equal work is not a
fundamental right vested in any employee
though it is a constitutional goal to be
achieved by the Government. Fixation of
pay and determination of parity in duties
and responsibilities is a complex matter
which is for the executive to discharge.
While taking a decision in the matter
several relevant factors, some of which
have been noted by this Court in the
decided case, are to be considered keeping
in view the prevailing financial position
and capacity of the State Government to
bear the additional liability of a revised
scale of pay, It is also to be kept in mind
that the priority given to different types of
posts under the prevailing policies of the
State Government is also a relevant factor
for consideration by the State Government.
In the context of complex nature of issues
involved, the far reaching consequences of
a decision in the matter and its impact on
the
administration
:of
the
State
Government courts have taken the view
that ordinarily courts should not try to
delve deep into administrative decisions
pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity.
That is not to say that the matter is not
justiciable or that the courts cannot
entertain any proceeding against such
administrative decision taken by the
government. The courts should approach
such matters with restraint and interfere
only when they are satisfied that the
decision of the government is patently
irrational unjust and prejudicial to a
section of employees and the government
while taking the decision has ignored
factors which are material and relevant for
a decision in the matter. Even in a case
where the court holds the order passed by
1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the government to be unsustainable then
ordinarily a direction should be given to
the State Government or the authority
taking the decision to reconsider the matter
and pass a proper order. The court should
avoid giving a declaration granting a
particular scale of pay and compelling the
government to implement the same. As
noted earlier, in the present case 'the High
Court has not even made any attempt to
compare
the
nature
of
duties
and
responsibilities of the two sections of the
employees, one in the State Secretariat and
the other in the Central Secretariat. It has
also ignored the basic principle that there
are certain rules, regulations and executive
instructions issued by the employers which
govern the administration of the cadre."

16. In light of facts mentioned
hereinabove as well as law laid down by
Apex Court, this Court is of the view that
once the employer is same, mode of
recruitment, qualification for the post,
nature of work and other responsibilities
are same, such employees shall be
governed by principal of 'equal pay for
equal work', and there cannot be any denial
of similar pay scale on any ground.

17. In the present case, there is no
dispute on the point that mode of
recruitment of petitioners as well as
employees of Irrigation Department i.e.
generator operators is the same. Further,
they are having same nature of work i.e.
running generators over and above of 50
KVA. Their principal employer is also
same i.e. State Government having full
control over both the departments i.e. PWD
and Irrigation Department headed by
Principal Secretary.

18. Therefore, the writ petition is
allowed
and
impugned orders
dated
7.4.2011, 8.12.2010, 22.9.2009, 7.10.2010,
11.3.2011, 30.12.2011, 1.4.2012 are hereby
quashed. A writ of mandamus be issued to
the respondents to pay the same pay scale
i.e. Rs.4000-6000/- to the petitioners also
as given to generator operators of Irrigation
Department from the date on which it has
given to them.

19. They shall also be entitled for the
interest at the bank rate from due date to
the date of actual payment.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1212
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C. J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal No. 470 of 2021

Sant Lal Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha (Sr. Adv.), Sri
Shashank Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh(Sr. Adv.), Sri
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ramanand
Pandey (A.C.S.C.)

A. Education Law - Election to Committee
of Management - Locus Standi - The writ
petitioner,
while
challenging
the
earlier
attestation of the fifth respondent's election held
by the Authorized Controller on 22.01.2018 vide
Writ-C No. 19219 of 2019, did not challenge the
order
dated
30.12.2017
passed
by
the
Authorized Controller, on the basis of which the