JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the regular pay scale on the post of conductor and has prayed that the respondent be directed to grant him the regular pay scale from the date of his appointment i.e. 22.12.1986. Earlier then filing the present writ petition, the petitioner had filed another writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2400/91, Om Prakash Sharma v. RSRTC & Another . In the said writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order dated 16.6.1988 passed by the respondent terminating his services. The said writ petition was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9.9.1991 and the order of termination of the petitioner from service was declared illegal and quashed and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. The court however declined to grant back wage to the petitioner as he had earlier prosecuted a wrong remedy by filing a civil suit.The petitioner however was held entitled to actual wage only from 26.6.1991. The period of service was ordered to be counted for the other purpose in accordance with law. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has simply claimed salary of the post of conductor on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to indicate as to what was the nature of his appointment and as to what was nature of duties he was discharging except stating that he was appointed on daily wage @ Rs. 20/- vide order dated 18.12.1986 as conductor in Kota Division of RSRTC. 3. The respondent RSRTC has contested the present writ petition by filing reply thereto. In para 3 of the reply, it has been averred that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case whatsoever so as to indicate any violation of Articles 14, 16, 39(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not stated as to what are the duties assigned to any other conductors. It has been stated in the order to claim parity of pay, the petitioner ought to have indicated what the salary of other conductors and what was the nature of work assigned to them. He should have also placed the material on record to show the nature of his own appointment and salary which he was presently receiving. 4. It has been stated in the order to claim parity of pay, the petitioner ought to have indicated what the salary of other conductors and what was the nature of work assigned to them. He should have also placed the material on record to show the nature of his own appointment and salary which he was presently receiving. 4. During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondent, Shri Rajesh Chaturvedi appearing on behalf of Dr. RC. Jain placed before the court the order dated 31.12.04. According to this order, the services of the petitioner have been regularised and he has been fixed in the regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.12.2004. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the petitioner should be held entitled to regular pay scale in terms of his prayer with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 22.12.86. 6. A perusal of the earlier judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 9.9.91 would make it clear that the benefit of back wage was specifically denied to the petitioner in view of the fact that he pursued wrong remedy by civil suit but he was granted only back wage from the date of filing of the aforesaid writ petition. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to make a claim for grant of salary in the regular pay scale by filing a separate writ petition. 7. In filing new writ petition however, the petitioner was required to have specifically pleaded as to what is the nature of his appointment and what are the duties which he is discharging. He ought to have placed on record such documents and datas which could show that the nature of duties which he was discharging from time to time in service of the respondent. It is not evident from the writ petition as to what is the salary of the petitioner when he filed the writ petition and what is the salary which the other conductors with whom the petitioner was claiming parity being paid. The petitioner has not placed any document on record to show the duties which the petitioner was discharging and the work assigned to other conductors who are being paid the regular pay scale was similar and their posting was interchangeable. The petitioner has not placed any document on record to show the duties which the petitioner was discharging and the work assigned to other conductors who are being paid the regular pay scale was similar and their posting was interchangeable. In the absence of all this material, it would be difficult for this court to decide the factual controversy; particularly when the respondents are specifically pleaded that in the absence of all these particulars they are not in a position to reply the averments which are neither specific nor are of any value for the purpose of deciding the writ petition. 8. Now, the petitioner has already been regularised in the services of respondents, no direction need be given as far as the period subsequent thereto is concerned. However, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the RSRTC giving aforementioned specific details and datas claiming regular pay scale from the earlier date. If any such representation is made, the respondent RSRTC is directed to decide the same within a period of three months from the receipt thereof. Further eventually if the petitioner feels aggrieved by any decision taken by the respondent RSRTC, he would be free to take appropriate remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law.Writ petition dismissed as above. *******