Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 904 (CAL)

Samir Roy v. State of West Bengal

2015-10-16

ANIRUDDHA BOSE

body2015
JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. 1. The writ petitioner at present works as the head clerk-cum- cashier in Helen Keller Badhir Vidyalaya. This is an institute which is sponsored by the Directorate of Mass Education Extension and Library Services of the Government of West Bengal. In this proceeding, he has prayed for a mandatory direction upon the respondents, being the State Government, its functionaries and the institute itself, for placing him in the scale of pay enjoyed by other persons holding similar posts in other institutes under the same as well as other Directorates or Department of the State Government. The petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1,040-1,920, which corresponds to the pay-scale of Rs. 3,350-6,325 after the Revision Pay and Allowance Rules, 1998 became operational. The petitioner’s case is that in other institutes under the same Directorate and in other Directorates under the State Government similarly circumstanced persons have the benefit of initial pay-scale of Rs. 1,260 to Rs. 2,610/-, which was enhanced to the scale of Rs. 4,000-Rs. 8,850/- under the ROPA 1998. 2. The petitioner’s employment in the said institute was formalized as an organized staff with effect from 1st April, 1997, and at that point of time, he was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.1040-Rs.1920/-. The petitioner has referred to five other institutes, in which he claims that similarly situated persons discharging the same nature of duties are getting the benefit of higher scale of pay, with whom he seeks pay parity. In particular the petitioner has referred to two institutes under the Mass Education Extension Directorate, being Shramik Vidyapith and Banipur Home. In the former, the petitioner has claimed that the head clerk is drawing the scale of pay of Rs.4000-Rs.8850/- and in the latter the, head clerk as also the upper division clerk are drawing a pay in the same higher scale. In the Library Sciences Directorate under the same department, the petitioner has referred to Bangiya Sahitya Parishad. The accountant cum chief clerk in that institute, according to the petitioner is also placed on a higher scale of pay, which is being demanded by the petitioner. 3. Ms. Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to two institutes dedicated to training of physically challenged persons being Cooch Behar Blind School and Raiganj Deaf and Dumb School, both under the under the Social Welfare Department. 3. Ms. Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to two institutes dedicated to training of physically challenged persons being Cooch Behar Blind School and Raiganj Deaf and Dumb School, both under the under the Social Welfare Department. In these two institutes the head clerk cum cashier as also accountant cum upper division clerk are getting the revised higher scale, corresponding to the scale of Rs.1260-Rs.2610/-. It is also contention of the petitioner that the head clerk cum accountant of Ballygunge Training Institute, being a school operating under the Technical Education and Training Department controlled by the Technical Education Department of the State Government is enjoying the benefit of higher scale of pay. 4. The respondent nos. 1 and 2, being the State of West Bengal and Director of Mass Education has contested this writ petition by filing affidavit. This affidavit has been affirmed by one Sudeb Barman, Deputy Director, Mass Education Directorate. Main contention of the respondents is that under the Revision of Pay and Allowances (ROPA), 1998 specified scale of pay has been prescribed for “Employees of Handicapped Institutions”. Three categories of institutions are covered in that regard under a memorandum dated 30th March, 1999 bearing no. 531 – Edn (MEE), a copy of which has been made annexure ‘R1’ to the affidavit-in-opposition. The specific institutions for which the pay-scale has been prescribed in that memorandum are:- “(i) Libraries sponsored by MEE Department. (ii) Handicapped Institutions sponsored by MEE-Department. (iii) Audio-Visual Units run by voluntary Organisation and Sponsored by MEE” 5. The petitioner’s job description, head clerk-cum-cashier is specified against item no. 29 in the list forming part of that memorandum. “Clerk-cum-Typist/clerk” appears against item no. 31 of the same list and same pay scale is specified for all these posts, barring minor variations based on educational qualification. It is Rs. 3350-6325/- corresponding to old pay-scale of Rs. 1040-1920/-, which scale the petitioner is drawing. 6. The petitioner in paragraph 13 of the writ petition has outlined the duties and responsibilities undertaken by him and according to him the persons holding the posts in the institutes referred to earlier also discharge the same duties and responsibilities. The averments made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied in the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2. The averments made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied in the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2. In the affidavit in reply of the petitioner to the said affidavit in opposition, the petitioner has referred to an internal note issued by the Director of Mass Education Extension on 21st May, 2007. This note seeks sanction of higher scale of Rs.4000-Rs.8850/- for the post of head clerk cum cashier/head clerk cum accountant in “sponsored handicapped institutions”. In this note, a copy of which has been made annexure ‘P-27’ to the affidavit-in-Reply, it has been recorded:- “Helen Keller Badhir Vidyalaya has been granted Sponsorship w.e.f. 01-041997 with sanction/approval of Hostel. Such strength has been approved with 27-Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff. One Post Viz. Head Clerk-Cum-Cashier has been sanctioned. The Institution has granted academic standard upto (illegible) The Head Clerk has to perform the following works. Preparation of Bills (Salary Bills, Contingency Bills preparation of Budget Accounts. Passing of Bills from respective Treasuries. Disbursement of Salaries to the Staff including payment of Contingencies to different Parties. Maintenance of Cash Book and other different works related to Cash (illegible) the duties scheduled for a Head Clerk of different educational Institutions. It is apparent that the incumbent holding the Post shoulder multifarious jobs for proper functioning of Institution and those jobs/works are more responsible/greater than that of the works/jobs of Jr. Clerk. The Institution has been properly functioning with enrolment of 249 including 146 Hostellers. It is fact that the incumbent attached to the Post has to undertake laborious as well as responsible works for smooth functioning the Institution. The nomenclature of the Post is Head Clerk-Cum- Cash incumbent holding the aforesaid Post has been enjoying the Pay scale of Rs.4000-8850/- in Colleges, Bangiya Sahitya Parishad (Copy enclosed) As the Post, Accountant-Cum-Chief Clerk attached to Bangiya Sahitya Parishad Sponsored by Mass Education Extension Department has been granted pay scale of Rs.4000-8850/-. The said pay scale may also be considered for sanction/approval to the Post Head Clerk-Cum-Cashier attached to the Institution. It is a policy decision to be undertaken for extending the benefits to similar posts in similar institutions”. 7. This proceeding, in fact is the second round of litigation on the same dispute. The said pay scale may also be considered for sanction/approval to the Post Head Clerk-Cum-Cashier attached to the Institution. It is a policy decision to be undertaken for extending the benefits to similar posts in similar institutions”. 7. This proceeding, in fact is the second round of litigation on the same dispute. The writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking his pay-parity in the manner described earlier, after making certain representations, by filing a writ petition, which was registered as W.P. No. 6030(W) of 2008. This writ petition was disposed of on 23rd April, 2008 by a Coordinate Bench with a direction upon the Director, Mass Education Extension Directorate to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a specified time frame. The petitioner’s plea was rejected by the Director by an order dated 16/21st October 2008 bearing memorandum no. 801/1(5)/AD/21. He observed:- “Actually, the pay scales of the employees of the special schools for the handicapped sponsored by the Government of West Bengal in Mass Education Extension Dept. are guided by ROPA Rules. The last ROPA Rules in 1998 allowed the Head Clerks of such sponsored schools the scale of pay of Rs.3350-90-3800-100-4700-125-632/- as the initial scale of appointment. However, they are entitled to the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme as per provision of ROPA Rules which allowed three consecutive higher scale of pay i.e. i) 3600-100-4200-125-5700-150-7050; ii) 3800-100-4100-125-4725-150-6375-175-7775/- and iii) 4000-125-4250-150-5300-175-7050-200-8850/- at the end of eight years, sixteen years and Twenty-five years respectively subject to observance of terms and conditions laid down for the purpose. The petitioner submitted that he would not rise to the last number of scale i.e. Rs.4000-8850/- as he did not have requisite years for promotion. I am to say that since the ROPA Rules laid down the scale of pay to be enjoyed by the employees of the said schools and they have also provided for Career Advancement Scheme following the provision of ROPA Rules, the Director, Mass Education Extension cannot advance the highest scale of pay to be reached by him by way of Career Advancement Scheme at the present lower stage of service. Neither he has any authority to change the scale of pay as demanded by the petitioner. Neither he has any authority to change the scale of pay as demanded by the petitioner. Since none of the Head Assistants working in the list of schools as cited by him got any better pay scale than him while doing the same job and working within the same pay structure, there is no sufficient reason to accept his argument for that. Actually, the examples cited by him do not support his cause at all. Bangia Sahitya Parishad is not under the authority of this Directorate and the Director does not know the terms and conditions of service of Chief Clerk cum- Accountant of the Bangia Sahitya Parishad whom the petitioner has cited as another example as one enjoying better scale of pay than him in spite of same service status. The petitioner himself cannot also tell the terms and conditions of the service of the said Chief Clerk cum- Accountant of the Bangia Sahitya Parishad nor did he produce any documentary evidence to his credit in this count. His plea, made during submission before me that he did not have many years of service ahead of him and for that reason he would not be able to draw the highest scale of pay admissible to him by way of Career Advancement Scheme does not make much sense; and on such consideration higher scale of pay cannot be allowed to any employee. Hence, considering the submissions in the form of writ petition as well as submissions made verbally before me, it appears that his arguments failed the test of law. Accordingly, it is ordered that his prayer be and is rejected.” 8. It would appears from the aforesaid decision of the Director, Mass Education Extension Directorate taken on 16th/21st October, 2008, a copy which has been made annexure ‘P-11’ to the writ petition that the rejection order was based primarily on two reasons. First one is that there is a specific provision for payment of employees of the institutions of the physically challenged, referred to in the memorandum of 30th March, 1999 as “handicapped institutions”, sponsored by the Government of West Bengal, to which category the subject institute belongs. The petitioner is being paid as per that scale, and the Director has no authority to change the scale. The petitioner is being paid as per that scale, and the Director has no authority to change the scale. He indicated in the order that Bangia Sahitya Parishad is not under the authority of the same Directorate and he does not know the terms and conditions of service of Chief Clerk cum Accountant of that institution. This memorandum, being annexure ‘P-11’ to the writ petition is under challenge in this writ petition, apart from prayer of the petitioner for mandatory direction for being placed on the higher pay-scale. 9. In their affidavit in opposition, the respondents have dealt with the status of the individual institutes referred to by the petitioner in paragraph nos.8, 9, 10 and 11. In these paragraphs, it has been stated:- “8. I deny and dispute the allegations made and/or contentions raised in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said application. I state that Sramik Vidyapith and Banipur State Welfare Home are Government Institutions and not sponsored institutions like the school in which the petitioner is working. 9. I deny and dispute the allegations made and/or contentions raised in Paragraph 9 of the said application. I state that the pay scales of the employees of the special schools for the handicapped sponsored by the Government of West Bengal in Mass Education Extension and Library Services Department are guided by ROPA Rules and only Bangiya Sahitya Parishad is not a school for handicapped students and is not under the control and supervision of the said Department. 10. I deny and dispute the allegations made and/or contentions raised in Paragraph 10 of the said application. I state that the Memo No. 1024- Edn(CS) dated December 18, 1992, referred to by the petitioner, was issued by the Technical Education Department and not the Department of Mass Education Extension and Library Services and moreover, Ballygunj Training Institute is not a sponsored school for the handicapped. 11. I deny and dispute the allegations made and/or contentions raised in Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said application. I state that the Government Order dated December 18, 1992, already mentioned hereinbefore and being Annexure-‘P-4’ to the said application, is not related to Mass Education Extension and Library Services Department and Ballygunj Training Institute and the non-Government colleges referred to by the petitioner are not under the control and supervision of Mass Education Extension and Library Services Department. I state that the Government Order dated December 18, 1992, already mentioned hereinbefore and being Annexure-‘P-4’ to the said application, is not related to Mass Education Extension and Library Services Department and Ballygunj Training Institute and the non-Government colleges referred to by the petitioner are not under the control and supervision of Mass Education Extension and Library Services Department. I state that in the special schools for the handicapped sponsored by the Government of West Bengal, are governed by the G.O. No.531-Edn (MEE) dated March 30, 1999, being Annexure-‘R-1’ hereto and the pay scales of the posts of Head Clerk/Head Assistant/Head Clerk-cum-Cashier/Clerk-cum-Librarian/Clerk-cum-Typist are the same.” 10. The concept of equal pay for equal work, on the strength on which the petitioner seeks higher scale of pay has been introduced to the Indian Jurisprudence by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (1982)1 SCC 618 and this precedent has not been upset or overruled in any later authorities though the mode of determining of the status of institutions for applying pay- parity have been clarified by the Supreme Court from time to time in different authorities, and I shall refer to some of these authorities later in this judgment. 11. The question which arises in this writ petition for adjudication is what would be the determining factors for comparing the posts for the purpose of applying the principle for equal pay for equal work. In the case of Union of India Vs. Dineshan K.K. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 586 , it has been held:- 9. Taking note of the admission on the part of the Union of India that there was disparity between the pay scales of the members of the Assam Rifles and similarly ranked personnel of other paramilitary forces, the High Court felt that it would be unreasonable and discriminatory if the pay scales given to Radio Mechanics in CRPF and BSF were denied to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, when the qualifications and service requirements in all the three organizations were identical. Consequently, the High Court issued the aforenoted directions, which are questioned in this appeal. 10. Mr. Consequently, the High Court issued the aforenoted directions, which are questioned in this appeal. 10. Mr. B. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India contended that the direction given by the High Court is manifestly contrary to the settled legal position, enunciated by this Court in several decisions that pay fixation is essentially an executive function, ordinarily undertaken by an expert body like the Pay Commission, whose recommendations are entitled to a great weight though not binding on the Government. It was argued that the recommendations of an expert body are not justiciable since the Court is not equipped to take upon itself the task of job evaluation, which is a complex exercise. In support of the proposition, reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court in S.C. Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Hiranmoy Sen & Ors.. 13. Initially, particularly in the early eighties, the said principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for equal work had no mathematical application in every case of similar work. It has been observed that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. (Vide: Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors. and State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association). Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the Executive or the Legislature, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex-facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene.” 12. Ms. Sengupta has also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court referred in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Goud & Ors., (2014)13 SCC 588 . In this judgment it has been held:- “4. The respondent is a Junior Hindi Translator working the office of Director General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics under the Commerce Ministry and he sought parity of pay with the Junior Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). The Home Ministry had issued Office Memorandum dated 9.2.2003, upgrading the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators from Rs.5,000-1050-8000 to Rs.5500-175-9000-, which were made applicable from 11.2.2003. The respondent sought the same pay-scale but it was denied to him. It is, therefore, that he filed an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The application filed by the respondent was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter, wherein amongst other things, in paragraph 9 they stated that the Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators for the Central Secretariat (CSOLS) may be applied to all subordinate offices subject to their functional requirement. However, no material whatsoever was placed before the Tribunal to show as to how the functional requirement of the concerned job in the Commerce Ministry was different from that in the Central Secretariat. Both the posts required the work for translation to be done and, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no reason to deny parity in pay. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 618 , which is a judgment granting equal pay to the drivers in Delhi Police Force as available to those in the Central Government and Delhi Administration. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 618 , which is a judgment granting equal pay to the drivers in Delhi Police Force as available to those in the Central Government and Delhi Administration. The petitioners herein challenged the order of the Tribunal by appoaching the Calcutta High Court which dismissed the writ petition and therefore, this special leave petition.” The other authorities relied upon by the petitioner are (i) State of Kerala Vs. B. Renjith Kumar [ (2008)12 SCC 219 ], (ii) Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Vs. G.S. Uppal [ (2008)7 SCC 375 ] and Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of U.P. [ (1986)1 SCC 637 ]. 13. On behalf of the respondents, reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of West Bengal Vs. Tropical School Employees Union & Ors. Reported in [ 1996(5) SCC 100 ]. In that case, pay parity was sought for under the same principle by certain employees of School of Tropical Diseases at par with the staff of University Grants Commission. In this case it was held:- “4. It would thus be clear that the respondents belong to two cadres C and D and having become Government servants, they are entitled to draw the scale of pay prescribed by the Government for the posts in C and D cadres. The question is whether they are entitled to the pay scales of the UGC. 5. Shri M. N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel for the respondents contended that the teaching staff are receiving the scale of pay prescribed by the UGC and the respondents are assisting the teaching staff. When similar persons working in the universities are receiving the pay scales prescribed by the UGC, the respondents are also equally entitled to the same. We fail to appreciate the stand. The employees of the universities are not the Government servants. They are governed by their own regulations and statutes under the respective enactments. The respondents on their own admitted position being the Government servants, cannot get higher scale of pay that prescribed for the post. We fail to appreciate the stand. The employees of the universities are not the Government servants. They are governed by their own regulations and statutes under the respective enactments. The respondents on their own admitted position being the Government servants, cannot get higher scale of pay that prescribed for the post. Under those circumstances, the High Court was wholly unjustified in extending the benefit of pay scales prescribed by the UGC to the non-teaching medical staff and also to Class-IV Government employees.” 14. Twofold defence of the State respondents to the claim of the petitioner are the specific Rule under ROPA 1998 for employees of institutes for the physically challenged, and structural difference between the Hellen Keller Badhir Vidyalaya and the other institutes cited by the petitioner. Sramik Vidyapith and Banipus State Welfare Home are directly under the control of the State Government, while the subject institute is a sponsored one. Ballygunj Training Institute has been distinguished, as not being a sponsored school of the handicapped. As regards other non-government colleges to which petitioner have referred to, stand of the respondents is that these are not under the control and supervision of the same Directorate or Department. 15. Where institutes have been cited by the petitioner under the same Department, distinguishing elements pointed out by the respondents are direct Government control or nature of activities of the institutes. The subject institute is a sponsored institute. So far as other institutes are concerned stand of the respondents is that these are not for physically challenged students or not under the same are not under the same Directorate. Such distinguishing feature has been specifically pleaded in relation to Bangiya Sahitya Parishad. On the point of similar job responsibility, contention of the respondents is that those institutes being under control or supervision of different departments, there cannot be any comparison on these counts for the purpose of assessing disparity in pay-scale. The affidavit of the respondents has been affirmed by the Deputy Director, Mass Education and Extension Department. 16. First I shall examine the respondents’ case for justifying difference of pay-scales between sponsored institutes and direct State managed institutes, and institutes under different departments of the State Government. In the case of B. Renjith Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court approved parity between Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal and District Judges on the question of being entitled to certain relief. In the case of B. Renjith Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court approved parity between Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal and District Judges on the question of being entitled to certain relief. In the case of G. S. Uppal (supra), applying the same principle, employees at certain level in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. were given pay-scale equivalent to employees holding similar posts in Public Works Department. In the case of Dhirendra Chamoli (supra), salary and conditions of service were directed to be accorded to the casual workers working on a daily-wage basis at par with regular class-IV employees of Nehru Yuvak Kendra. 17. Going through the ratio of these authorities, I find that the main criteria considered for application of the principle of equal pay for equal work is similarities in duties discharged and obligations and responsibilities burdened between the competing sets of employees. The employees must belong to a common organization – and in the event the ultimate employer is State, either directly or through its agencies over whom it has deep and pervasive control, there must be strong organic link. For instance, there cannot be disparity in pay between two sets of employees serving in two different departments if it is found that they are discharging same and similar duties with corresponding obligations. In the case of Dineshan K.K (supra), radio mechanics of Assam Rifles were held to be entitled to get same pay-scale as the radio mechanics of certain other Central para-military forces. If the ultimate employer is the same, and duties, responsibilities and qualifications remain the same, then in my opinion a strong case for parity of pay-scale is made out, and in exercise of the power of judicial review, Court can direct the executive to implement parity if there is discrimination. 18. In the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner, another memorandum issued by the Director of Mass Education Extension, bearing U.O. No. 282/ME/PH dated 13th April, 2004 has been referred to, a copy of which has been made annexure ‘P-25’ thereto:- “U.O. No. 282/ME/PH Date. 13-4-2004 Sub.:- Sanction of higher pay scale of Rs.4000- 8850/- prescribed for Upper Division Clerk-Cum- Accountant in the Sponsored Handicapped Institutions.” Department of Mass Education Extension is requested to refer to the subject. In the staff pattern of some Sponsored Handicapped Institutions Posts with nomenclature of Head Clerk-Cum-Accountant-Cum-Typist have been sanctioned by Government. 13-4-2004 Sub.:- Sanction of higher pay scale of Rs.4000- 8850/- prescribed for Upper Division Clerk-Cum- Accountant in the Sponsored Handicapped Institutions.” Department of Mass Education Extension is requested to refer to the subject. In the staff pattern of some Sponsored Handicapped Institutions Posts with nomenclature of Head Clerk-Cum-Accountant-Cum-Typist have been sanctioned by Government. Incumbents holding those Posts are now enjoying the pay scale of Rs.3350-6325/-, prescribed for Lower Division Clerk under ROPA-98. Representations have been received from many Schools for sanction of higher pay scale of Rs.4000-8850/-which has been prescribed for Upper Division Clerk, to those incumbents. It appears from the Staff pattern of the Sponsored Institutions that only 4(Four) Institutions have a Post designated as Clerk-cum- Cashier-cum-Typist. The incumbents of the said 4 Institutions who are holding the Posts designated as above have claimed for the pay scale of Rs.4000-8850/-, so the present problem may be solved if the incumbents holding the Post of Head Clerk-Cum-Cashier-cum-typist or Head Clerk-cum- Accountant-Cum-Typist are granted the pay scale of Rs.4000-8850/-. But incidentally it may be stated here that so far as the assignment of duties is concerned the Post of Clerk-Cum- Cashier-Cum-Typist are not less important than the Posts designated as above, as the incumbents of the Posts are performing the duties of two or more different nature. If higher pay scale is granted for the Posts of Head Clerk the incumbents of the Post of Clerk-Cum-Cashier-cum- Typist have sufficient ground for claiming higher pay scale. So, it is felt necessary that uniformity should be maintained in case of sanctioning Posts in staff pattern of the Institutions. However, staff pattern of the Institutions having Posts of Head Clerk-Cum-Cashier-Cum-Typist, Head Clerk-Cum-Accountant-Cum-Typist. Clerk-Cum-Cashier-Cum-Typist are placed in the file for further action. Enclo. :-As stated. Director of Mass Edn. Extension, West Bengal. 19. So far as similarities of duty and responsibility of the post the petitioner is holding in relation to other posts of sponsored institutes, in the two memoranda forming part of affidavit-in-reply, the Director of Mass Education Extension himself has expressed his opinion for pay-parity. In the memorandum dated 21st May, 2007 (annexure ‘P-27’), the post which the petitioner is holding has been specifically considered to be comparable with those holding the said post in colleges and Bangiya Sahitya Parishad. Similarity of job responsibilities has also been specifically referred to by the Director in his memorandum dated 13th April, 2004. In the memorandum dated 21st May, 2007 (annexure ‘P-27’), the post which the petitioner is holding has been specifically considered to be comparable with those holding the said post in colleges and Bangiya Sahitya Parishad. Similarity of job responsibilities has also been specifically referred to by the Director in his memorandum dated 13th April, 2004. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the deponent is the Deputy Director, a post obviously junior to that of the Director. The deponent of that affidavit has sought to highlight the dissimilarities in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 but these dissimilarities are in relation to organizational structures, though all these organizations operate under the umbrella of the State Government. No specific case has been made out on differences or dissimilarities in the duties and responsibilities. Nor such dissimilarities, if any, have been explained. But merely because the other institutes are run under different Departments or Directorates of the State Government, discrimination in pay would be permissible. In the case of the employees of the school of Tropical Diseases [(1996)8 SCC 204] the ultimate employers were altogether different and ratio of that decision cannot be applied in the facts of this case. The disparity pointed out by the petitioner cannot be justified on the ground that the subject-institute is sponsored and not directly run by the State Government. Deep and pervasive control of the State Government over running of the subject institute is apparent in this case. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli (supra) would apply on that count. 20. In this perspective, can the petitioner be denied the benefit of pay-parity solely based on the reasoning of the content of the memorandum bearing no. 531-Edn (MEE) dated 30th March 1998? In my opinion, once case for parity in pay-scale is established based on constitutional principles emanating from the equality clause incorporated in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the decision of the State Government as reflected in the said memorandum cannot survive. That would amount to perpuating an unconstitutional act. 21. I accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the respondent nos. That would amount to perpuating an unconstitutional act. 21. I accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to place the petitioner at par with the head clerks and cashier or in a post of any other nomenclature that may be given to employees serving in other institutes under the same Directorate, which the petitioner has claimed in substance in this writ petition. I am issuing this direction to ensure pay-parity within the same Directorate, as in my opinion extending the relief referring to other departments or Directorates is likely to cause severe administrative difficulty. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of higher scale because he is an employee of an institute for physically challenged, and the other institutes of the same Directorate undertake some other activities. In my view, though the stand of the respondents give rise to discrimination at different levels, in the given case directing pay-parity within the same Directorate would provide sufficient relief to the petitioner. Making distinction between sponsored and state-run institutes within the same Directorate even though the nature of duties responsibilities undertaken by the employees of both categories of the institutes remain same or similar in my opinion would be an artificial distinction, not based on any rational or intelligible criteria. Having regard to the opinion of the Director (respondent no. 2) as reflected in the two memoranda marked annexure ‘P-25’ and P-27’ of the affidavit-in-reply, I find that the petitioner’s service in Helen Keller Badhir Vidyalaya cannot be distinguished from the service of other personnel employed in other institutes run by the said Directorate, which may not be serving the physically challenged. 22. The petitioner accordingly is directed to be given the benefit of enhanced scale of pay from the date of institution of the first writ petition, to which I have referred to, as it was in that writ petition the petitioner had raised his complaint on disparity for the first time in a Court of law. In this case I follow the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Bagwan Dass Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1987 (4) SCC 634 . The exercise of computation and finalization of the dues shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the of communication of this judgment and order. 23. In this case I follow the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Bagwan Dass Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1987 (4) SCC 634 . The exercise of computation and finalization of the dues shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the of communication of this judgment and order. 23. The petitioner, however, shall be entitled to notional benefit of higher scale of pay and also incremental pay from the date of his fixation from 1997, which shall be relevant for the purpose of computation of his retiral dues. 24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the judgment be given to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.