Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2342 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar Sengar v. State Of U. P.

2019-10-17

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Subhendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri P.K. Ganguly, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. Petitioners who are ten in number have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.01.2016 passed by respondent no. 1, The Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Research, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. (B). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioners as Lab Technicians in the Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Agricultural and Technical University Meerut, in the pay scale of Rupees 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 or from the date of their appointment whichever is later and to ensure payment of the same on monthly basis; (C). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to ensure payment of the same on monthly basis together with arrears of salary with interest @18% per annum consequent upon fixation of their salary in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 or from the date of initial appointment whichever is later;" 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that Pt. Govind Ballabh Pant Agriculture and Technical University, Pant Nagar, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as 'Pant Nagar University') was constituted and created under U.P. State Agricultural Universities Act for imparting education and research work in technical field of agriculture within the State of U.P. After the reorganisation of the State of U.P. on 09.11.2000, the University came within the limits of newly created State of Uttarakhand. To carry out work of imparting education and technical research in agriculture, one 'Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Agricultural and Technical University, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Agricultural University, Meerut') was established on the lines on which the Pant Nagar University was created and constituted. It has been stated that some staff of Pant Nagar University was transferred and absorbed in Agriculture University Meerut. It has been stated that some staff of Pant Nagar University was transferred and absorbed in Agriculture University Meerut. Post of Lab Technicians was created and sanctioned for both the Universities by the State of U.P. The ten petitioners before this Court are working on the post of Lab Technicians at Agriculture University, Meerut. According to petitioners, after the acceptance of recommendation of 4th Pay Commission, pay scale of Lab Technicians was revised and fixed at Rs.1400-2600 with effect from 01.01.1986. It is further stated that the Chancellor granted no objection for creation and sanction of the post of Lab Technicians in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 before the creation of new State of Uttarakhand on 23.02.1998, copy of the Government Order is on the record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 4. The recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission was accepted by State Government and Principal Secretary (Finance) on 10.07.1998 directed for revision of the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 with the corresponding pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. The said pay scale stood revised from 01.01.1996, copy of the Government Order dated 10.07.1998 is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Pursuant to that Pant Nagar University also revised the pay scale of teaching and other staff, and on 24th July, 1998 the Finance Controller issued a letter to the said effect which is on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 5. Petitioners who are Lab Technicians working at Agriculture University, Meerut were paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 instead of pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 which had already been revised as per the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission and accepted in the State of U.P. and being applicable from 01.01.1996. Petitioners raised their grievance before respondent nos. 3 and 4 through representation seeking parity in the pay scale between the Lab Technicians of Pant Nagar University, Nainital and Agriculture University at Meerut. According to petitioners a meeting between the Meerut Workers' Union and the Administration of Agriculture University, Meerut was held on 13th and 14th August, 2008 and it was agreed for resolving the dispute within 45 days but the same was not implemented. As no action was taken, petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 58288 of 2008. According to petitioners a meeting between the Meerut Workers' Union and the Administration of Agriculture University, Meerut was held on 13th and 14th August, 2008 and it was agreed for resolving the dispute within 45 days but the same was not implemented. As no action was taken, petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 58288 of 2008. The said petition was dismissed on 10.10.2010, against which a Special Appeal No. 1331 of 2011 was preferred, which was disposed of on 07.09.2015 with a direction to State Government to take decision on revision of pay scale. The grievance of the petitioners was turned down by the State Government by the impugned order dated 22.01.2016. 6. Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that both Pant Nagar University and Agriculture University, Meerut were created and constituted under the U.P. State Agricultural Universities Act and further, the University in question on 18.02.2009 had recommended to the Government that petitioners' pay scale should be amended from Rs.4500-7000 to higher scale of Rs.5000-8000. Sri Bhushan further contended that the order impugned suffers on many counts, as it states that the Lab Technicians working in Agriculture University, Meerut and those working at Pant Nagar University are different because the designation, pay scale, mode of recruitment, educational qualification, duty and responsibilities were not identical and, which according to him are not correct. He further submitted that for judging the equality of work for the purpose of equal pay regard must be not only to the duties and function but also to educational qualifications, qualitative difference and measures of responsibility prescribed on respective post. He further tried to distinguish the four facts for settling dispute regarding equation of post are:- (1) The nature of duties of post; (2) The responsibilities and power exercised by officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or the other charges held on responsibilities discharged; (3) The minimum qualification of any, prescribed for recruitment to his part and (4) The salary of the post, if the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of two posts are different would not in any way to make the post not equivalent. 7. 7. He further contended that petitioners are working on post of Lab Technicians and are discharging same duties, responsibilities and functions and their hours of duties are also same, thus are entitled to receive salary in pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. It was also contended that once the Government Order accepted the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission and was implemented in the State of U.P. from 01.01.1996 and being applicable to Agricultural Universities in the State and the pay scale of Lab Technicians being fixed in the scale of Rs.5000-8000, the action of the respondents in rejecting their claim was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior counsel vehemently submitted that had the State of U.P. not bifurcated in the year 2000, then the State Government would have been paying the Lab Technicians of Pant Nagar University in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. 8. Sri P.K. Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 (University) submitted that the University in question is a State Agriculture University and receives funds/grant in aid from the State Government and it cannot enhance salary of its employee without sanction of the State Government. He, however, supported the fact that petitioners are entitled in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and relied upon the letter of the Vice Chancellor of the University dated 18.02.2009 written to the State Government. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the State Government has taken decision regarding the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission on 26.09.2013 and accordingly, the petitioners are being paid in the said pay scale. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the State Government has taken decision regarding the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission on 26.09.2013 and accordingly, the petitioners are being paid in the said pay scale. He further contended that Pant Nagar University, Uttarakhand and Agriculture University, Meerut are different institutions, having different nomenclature, pay scale, process of recruitment, work and responsibility, which has been distinguished in the Chart as given in Para 7 of their counter affidavit which is extracted hereasunder: Øe laŒ d`f"k ,oa izkS|ksfxd fo'ofo|ky;] esjB xksfoUn cYyHk d`f"k ,oa izks|ksfxd fo'ofo|ky;] iaruxj 1 Osrueku Oksrueku :Œ4500&7000 esa 'kklukns'k laŒ1725@128&2002&5000¼10½@2001 fnukad 17-09-2002 ,oa 'kklukns'k laŒ&437@67&d`f"kv&04&500¼10½@2001 fnukad 15-07-2004 }kjk rDuhf'k;u ds dqy 09 inksa dh Lohd`frA Oksrueku :Œ1400&2600 iqujhf{kr osrueku 5000&8000 esa 'kklukns'k laŒ3698@12&8&98&400¼14½@95 fnukad 23 Qjojh] 1998 }kjk ySc rDuhf'k;u ds inksa dh Lohd`frA 2- HkrhZ dh fof/k lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk 50 izfr'kr lh/kh HkrhZ 50 izfr'kr inksUufr }kjk Hkjs tkus dh Lohd`fr bl izfrca/k ds lkFk iznku dh gS fd lacf/kr deZpkfj;ks dh 'kSaf{kd ,oa rduhdh ;ksXrk, leku gksA 3- ‘kSf{kd vgZrk foKkiu laŒ&01@2003 I.Sc. with Diploma in Electronics Engg. Experience in handling of Electronic Machines. foKkiu laŒ&11@2004 High School with Diploma in Electronics@Civil/Electical/Mechanical Engg. Knowledge. foKkiu laŒ&01@2006 High School@Intermediate with Science and Diploma in Electronics Engg. Or B.Sc/B.Sc (Ag) & AH having experience in handling of electronic machines@equipments. Desirable Computer b.VjehfM,V lkabZl ds lkFk yScksjsVhª rDuhf'k;u dk fMIyksek rFkk VsDuhf'k;u ds in ij 02 o"kZ dk dk;Z vuqHko ;k foKku LukRkd dh mikf/k ;k b.VjehfM,V lkabl ds lkFk i'kqfpfdRlk foKku egkfo|ky; esa iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds :i es Øe'k% 7 o"kZ ;k 10 o"kZ dk vuqHko ;k ,eŒ,lŒlhŒ e`nk@jlk;u@tho jlk;u foKkuA 4 dk;Z dk nkf;Ro d`f"k ,oa tSo izksŒ egkfo|ky; dh iz;ksx'kkykvkss esa midj.kksa dk lapkyu j[k&j[kko] Nk=ks ds fy;s iz;ksx esa vkus okys midj.kks@jlk;uks dk vko';drk@ek=kuqlkj miyC/k djkukA Lukrd rFkk LukdksŸkj Lrjh; f'k{k.k ,oa 'kks/k dk;ksZ esa lgk;rk djukA v/;;ujr Nk=ksa ,oa f'k{kd@oSKkfudksa ds fofHkUu iz;ksxksa rFkk 'kks/k dk;ksZ esa lgk;rk djukA iz;ksx'kkyk esa fLFkr midj.kksa ds lapkyu o mudk j[k&j[kko vkfn djukA 10. He further contended that the Agriculture University at Meerut being set up under the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural and Technical Universities Act, 1958 is running within the State of U.P. and no parity can be granted to the establishment of post at Pant Nagar University which is running under the Agricultural Universities Act in the State of Uttarakhand. 11. Replying the argument of the learned Standing Counsel Sri Anil Bhushan submitted that the post in the University is sanctioned by the State Government under Section 28(r) of the State Agricultural and Technical Universities Act, 1958. He invited the attention of the Court to the letter of the Vice Chancellor dated 03.06.2017 written to the State Government which is on record as RA-1, wherein respondent no. 3 had categorically stated that appointment, educational qualification, work and duties of Lab Technicians in both the Pant Nagar University as well as Agriculture University, Meerut are same. Further, both these Universities are doing the same work, but despite the said fact there is disparity in the pay scale of the Lab Technicians of the two Universities. It is also stated in the said letter that respondent no. 3 had already apprised the Chancellor on 30.08.2007 that the statutes of Pant Nagar University are applicable in Agriculture University, Meerut, and it was after the bifurcation of the State of U.P. that Pant Nagar University fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttarakhand and Agriculture University at Meerut was created. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of the material on record the question which emerges for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 made applicable to the Lab Technicians of Pant Nagar University pursuant to the Government Order dated 10.07.1998 issued by the State of U.P., which was made effective from 01.01.1996 or to be in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. 13. It is not in dispute that Pant Nagar University was created and established in the State of U.P. under the U.P. State Agricultural Universities Act. From time to time the teaching as well as non-teaching staff of the said University was paid salary by the State Government according to the recommendations of the Pay Commission. The State of U.P. had accepted the 4th and 5th Pay Commission recommendation which was made applicable in the State, in the year 1986 and thereafter, from 01.01.1996. From time to time the teaching as well as non-teaching staff of the said University was paid salary by the State Government according to the recommendations of the Pay Commission. The State of U.P. had accepted the 4th and 5th Pay Commission recommendation which was made applicable in the State, in the year 1986 and thereafter, from 01.01.1996. The Government Order dated 10.07.1998 issued by the State Government accepting and endorsing the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission was made applicable to all the teaching as well as non-teaching staff in various Universities as well as Agricultural Universities in the State of U.P., which was effective from 01.01.1996. Lab Technicians working at that relevant point of time were given the benefit of the 5th Pay commission from 01.01.1996. 14. Subsequently, State of U.P. was bifurcated on 09.11.2000, and the State of Uttarakhand was carved out, as Pant Nagar University fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttarakhand, it came to be governed by the orders of the State of Uttarakhand. It is also not in dispute that after the formation of new State of Uttarakhand another Agricultural and Technical University was created and established in the name of Agriculture University at Meerut under the U.P. State Agricultural and Technical Universities Act, 1958. It is the Lab Technicians of this University who are claiming the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 which was given by the State of U.P. through Government Order dated 10.07.1998 to the Lab Technicians, then working in the State of U.P. in the University at Pant Nagar. 15. Vide order dated 02.08.2019 time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to why the Government Order dated 10.07.1998 was not applicable in case of petitioners though they are working as Lab Technicians within the State of U.P. while the benefit of the same had already been extended and given to those Lab Technicians who were earlier working in the State but now after bifurcation, are within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Uttarakhand at Pant Nagar; but as usual the State again tried to seek time to reply the query raised. As sufficient time had been granted to the State only to reply on this question regarding the applicability of the Government Order and the State having failed to reply the same, I find no option but to proceed with the matter as the petitioners are claiming parity and had been litigating for last 11 years, as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending but to decide the same on merits. 16. The State Government rejected the representation of the petitioners on 22.01.2016 on the ground that nomenclature, pay scale, process of recruitment, work and responsibility are different in both Universities, that is at Pant Nagar, Uttarakhand and Agriculture University at Meerut. From reading of the Chart distinguishing between the two institution by the State as far as the pay scale is concerned, it is amply clear that the State of U.P. which had accepted and endorsed 4th and 5th Pay Commission made applicable to those Lab Technicians who were working within the State of U.P. at that relevant point of time were paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, while by the subsequent Government Order the State of U.P. placed the petitioners as Lab Technicians in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. As far as the mode of recruitment is concerned the University at Meerut prescribes for direct recruitment, while at Pant Nagar University 50% of the Technicians are appointed by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The educational qualification as provided in the third column of the Chart for the two Universities also does not show any distinction as both of them provide for almost same qualification while the work and responsibility for the Lab Technicians of the two Universities are also almost the same. 17. In the Chart provided in Para 7 of the counter affidavit the work and responsibilities assigned to the lab technicians in the two Universities, Column 4 provides that the lab technicians are to work for upkeeping and maintaining the electric machines, equipment in the lab for the students in the Agricultural University. The said work or responsibilities provided for the two Universities in the said Column does not provide any distinction as to the work and responsibilities assigned to them. 18. The said work or responsibilities provided for the two Universities in the said Column does not provide any distinction as to the work and responsibilities assigned to them. 18. The principle of equal pay for equal work was discussed by the Apex Court in catena of judgments, in one such case while deciding the benefits to be accorded to Hindi Translators in Central Government Directorates with that of Translator in Central Secretariat, the Apex Court in case Union of India and others v. Rajesh Kumar Gond, (2014) 13 SCC 588 held as under:- "10. The respondents herein working as Senior Translators/Assistant Directors in the offices under the Ministry of Defence. They also sought parity with the translators in the Central Secretariat which has been granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh by its judgment dated 18-05-2009. That judgment is left undisturbed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal, by its order dated 23-03-2011. 11. Mr Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that their source of recruitment was different. However, having noted that no functional difference was shown in their work, we cannot find any fault with the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court for the reasons stated in the earlier special leave petition. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs." 19. While considering the case of Drivers in Delhi Police Force performing same function and duties as Drivers in Delhi Administration, the Apex Court in case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others, (1982) 1 SCC 618 in Paras 7, 8 and 9 held as under:- "7. Our attention was drawn to Binoy Kumar Mukerjee v. Union of India, (1973) 1 ILR(Del) 427 and Makhan Singh v. Union of India, (1975) 1 ILR(Del) 227, where reference was made to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, (1962) AIR SC 1139 describing the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do with Art. 14. We shall presently point out how the principle, "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. We shall presently point out how the principle, "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India is not itself of any real assistance to us since what was decided there was that there could be different scales of pay for different grades of a service. It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Art. 14 if sought to be applied to them. 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. Article 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. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the state not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 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 something 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. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something 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 take-over 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 at least 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 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). 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 Article 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 driver-constables 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 at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. 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 at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from January 1, 1973, the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect." 20. This Court also had an occasion to consider the case of Dark Room Assistants performing the work of X-ray technicians who were granted the pay scale of X-ray technicians in case of Ashok Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and another, (2005) 1 ESC 143 , the Court held as under:- "9. The respondents have not paid their salary of the post of X-ray Technicians to the petitioners because of non-amendment of the Rules of 1986 (which is prerogative of the State Government exclusively). The State Government cannot refuse the salary admissible to the post of X-ray Technicians to the petitioners, inasmuch as no one can be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. The State Government had categorically assured the Dark Room Assistants of appointment as X-ray Technicians provided they are selected and completed the training for being appointed as X-ray Technicians. The decision of the State Government to that effect is patently arbitrary and without any basis. Even otherwise on the principle of "Equal pay for equal work', since the respondents have appointed the petitioners on the post of X-ray Technicians and there is no denial of the fact that the duties and responsibilities of the post of X-ray Technicians are being discharged by the petitioners." 21. Supreme Court while considering the principle of equal pay for equal work applicable to temporary employees had the occasion to consider the same in State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . Supreme Court while considering the principle of equal pay for equal work applicable to temporary employees had the occasion to consider the same in State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . The Apex Court laid down the parameters for applicability of the concept of equal pay for equal work, it also considered the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in case of Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 , Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 , Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 , D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 , Mewa Ram Kanojia, (1989) 2 SCC 235 . The Apex Court in the said judgment not only considered for the employees engaged on regular basis but claim of temporary employees. Relevant Paras are 42, 57, 58, 59, 60, which are extracted hereasunder:- "42. All the judgments noticed in paragraphs 7 to 24 hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them, were against the same post for which a higher pay scale was being allowed, in other government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were the same, as of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale. Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was invoked and considered, it would be just and appropriate, to delineate the parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the said parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to express the legal position with reference to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions:- 42.1 The "onus of proof" of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", lies on the person who claims it. Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions:- 42.1 The "onus of proof" of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 , Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur, (2011) 2 SCC 452 , the Steel Authority of India Limited v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122 and the National Aluminum Company Limited v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 ). 42.2 The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant, is in a "different department" vis-a-vis the reference post, does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Persons discharging identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of Government (see Randhir Singh case v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 and the D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 ). 42.3 The principle of 'equal pay for equal work', applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification (see Randhir Singh case v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 ). 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 Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 91 , the Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (1989) 2 SCC 235 , Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 619 and S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 ). 42.4 Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' (see the Randhir Singh case (supra), State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, 2005 6 SCC 72, and the Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 ). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked, merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature. 42.5 In determining equality of functions and responsibilities, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', it is necessary to keep in mind, that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case (supra) and the State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 556 ). The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 , and Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 619 ). 42.6 For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale [see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case (supra)]. 42.7 Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales. Such as - 'selection grade', in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as - merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria [see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (supra)]. 42.7 Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales. Such as - 'selection grade', in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as - merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria [see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (supra)]. 42.8 If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable (see Mewa Ram Kanojia case (supra), and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, 2017 1 SCC 347). In such a cause, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be invoked. 42.9 The reference post, with which parity is claimed, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', has to be at the same hierarchy in the service, as the subject post. pay scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a promotional post [see Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey, (2000) 8 SCC 580 and Hukum Chand Gupta case (supra)]. 42.10 A comparison between the subject post and the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be made, where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see Harbans Lal case v. State of H.P., (1989) 4 SCC 459 ). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 ). 42.11 Different pay scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable. 42.11 Different pay scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable. And also when, the reference post includes the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post [see State Bank of India case (supra)]. 42.12 The priority given to different types of posts, under the prevailing policies of the Government, can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay scales. Herein also, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable (see State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72 ). 42.13 The parity in pay, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be claimed, merely on the ground, that at an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay- scale. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities (see State of West Bengal v. Minimum Wages Inspectors Association, (2010) 5 SCC 225 42.14 For parity in pay scales, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', equation in the nature of duties, is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable [see Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur (supra)]. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable [see Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur (supra)]. 42.15 There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay scales, between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e., between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office level [see the Hukum Chand Gupta case (supra)], when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar. 42.16 The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues [see Hukum Chand Gupta case (supra)]. 42.17 Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a different organization, there can be no question of equation of pay scales, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', even if two organizations have a common employer. Likewise, if the management and control of two organizations, is with different entities, which are independent of one another, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not apply [see S.C. Chandra case (supra), and the National Aluminum Company Limited case (supra)]. 57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. 59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:- "7. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular: (a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work; (ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant; (b) Safe and healthy working conditions; (c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence; (d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays." (emphasis supplied) India is a signatory to the above Covenant having ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee - whether engaged on regular or temporary basis. 60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the 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. 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 on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post." 22. Thus, it is settled law that an employee is entitled for parity in pay/pay scale if he is discharging/performing similar functions, duties and responsibilities. 23. In the present case, the State Government, itself by Government Order dated 10.07.1998 had accepted the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission and the benefits of the same was given to all the teaching and non-teaching staff of various Universities as well as Agricultural Universities in the State of U.P. effective from 01.01.1996. At the relevant point of time Pant Nagar University which was part of the State of U.P. and was enacted under the U.P. State Agricultural Universities Act implemented the said recommendation, and Lab Technicians working in the said University were given the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission. It is only after the bifurcation of the State of U.P. in the year 2000, that another Agriculture University, Meerut was created/established in 2001 and by the Government Order dated 17.09.2002 that post of 9 Lab Technicians was sanctioned in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. Though the post created and sanctioned by the State of Lab Technicians for Pant Nagar University in the year 1998 was in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 which was revised to pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. 24. The State has failed to justify as to how the post of Lab Technicians sanctioned later in time for an Agriculture University was in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, in the year 2002, while it sanctioned the post of Lab Technicians in the year 1998 in the revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. 24. The State has failed to justify as to how the post of Lab Technicians sanctioned later in time for an Agriculture University was in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, in the year 2002, while it sanctioned the post of Lab Technicians in the year 1998 in the revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. The State has also failed to justify as to how 5th Pay Commission which was accepted and endorsed in the State of U.P. in the year 1998, the benefits of the same would not be given to those Lab Technicians appointed after the bifurcation of the State of U.P. in the year 2002 while the same already been given and granted to those Lab Technicians working in an Agriculture University in the State in the year 1998. The action of the State Government is totally arbitrary and discriminatory in nature distinguishing between the Lab Technicians appointed prior to bifurcation of the State in the Pant Nagar University and thereafter, those appointed in Agriculture University, Meerut in the year 2002. 25. Further, the order impugned also fails to provide any justifiable reason as to distinction of the pay scales of the two, Lab Technicians posted in Agriculture University, Meerut and Pant Nagar University as from the reading of Chart provided in the order impugned the work and responsibility assigned in the two Universities are more or less the same as also the educational qualification provided for the two Universities. Agriculture University at Meerut provides for 100% direct recruitment while in the case of Pant Nagar University 50% posts are to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. 26. As, it is a settled law that similarly situated employees are entitled for equal pay for equal work where they are discharging same work, function and responsibilities. In the present case, it is the State Government before bifurcation of State had granted the benefit of the 5th Pay Commission to the Lab Technicians but, post bifurcation the respondent-State is trying to distinguish between the Lab Technicians of the two Universities on the basis of experiences and are trying to create three different slabs in the said pay scale, which was not there at the time it was granted to the Lab Technicians of the State in the year 1998. 27. 27. As Article 14 enshrines equality before law or the equal protection of law and Article 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 equity clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people equity clauses of Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equity clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Construing Article 14, 16 and Article 39(d), I am of the view that principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from these articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification, though these drawing different scales of pay do identical work. In the present case, the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 from 01.01.1996 or from the date of their appointment. 28. In view of the above and the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Randhir Singh (supra) and Jagjit Singh (supra), the order impugned dated 22.01.2016 is quashed and the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 or from the date of appointment whichever is later. The respondents are directed to fix salary of the petitioners in the said pay scale. 29. The petitioners are also entitled for their arrears of salary in the said pay scale, however, as regard to the interest, the petitioners may set up a claim before the respondent authorities who shall consider the same. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed.