JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondent-authorities to pay the benefits of equal pay for equal work to the petitioner arising out of the post of State Entomologist w.e.f. 18.06.1988. 2. Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argues that petitioner is entitled for the benefits attached with the post of State Entomologist on which post he was working since 1988 till the date of his superannuation in the year 2010. Learned counsel fairly argues that when the case of the petitioner was not considered for regular appointment to the post of State Entomologist, he moved the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1653 of 1996 and the Hon’ble Court directed the respondents to make regular appointment within a period of four months and also respondents were directed to pay the petitioner such benefits to which the petitioner is entitled under Rule-103 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code. Though the petitioner superannuated in the year 2010 but neither the regular appointment was made nor any benefits of the said post on which the petitioner continued to discharge his duties was given to him. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of fresh writ petition i.e. the present one for getting the benefits attached with the post of State Entomologist and confines his prayer for payment of salary of the post of State Entomologist since he has worked on that post continuously from 1988 to 2010. Learned counsel further submits that though counter-affidavit has been filed but nothing has been brought on record to show as to whether any order regarding payment of salary of the post of State Entomologist was passed by the respondents taking into consideration that petitioner has worked on the said post from 1988 to 2010 and in view of Rule-103 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code he is entitled for the salary of the post of State Entomologist. 3. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel representing the respondent-State submits that petitioner is not entitled for any salary of the post of State Entomologist since he was on deputation and he has been paid whatever he was entitled for. Apart from that an amount of Rs.250 per month which is given to a person who is on deputation has also been given to him. Apart from that an amount of Rs.250 per month which is given to a person who is on deputation has also been given to him. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has moved this Court after eight years of his retirement and on this ground also, he is not entitled for any benefits as claimed for. 4. Be that as it may, having perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavit, it is crystal clear that no decision has been taken by the respondents under Rule-103 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code, regarding payment of salary to the petitioner for the post of State Entomologist, on which he continued to discharge his duties from 1988 to 2010. The petitioner was never on deputation what has been argued by the respondents and he continued to work on that post and even a direction was given by the Court for making regular appointment. The case of the petitioner was even considered and recommended by the Chief Minister who is also the Incharge of the Health Ministry but even then no heed was paid to the said recommendation. It appears that the petitioner was neither considered for regular appointment nor the salary of the said post was given to him. Admittedly, since the petitioner has been superannuated in the year 2010, he cannot claimed for any regular appointment neither he can ask for fresh appointment to the post of State Entomologist but he can claim salary of the post on which he worked continuously from 1998 to 2010. 5. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors. [ (2013) 4 SCC 152 ], wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under : “10. We have considered the respective submissions. The applicability of the doctrine of equality, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, in the matter of pay and allowances was explained in Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 in the following words: 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. 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. 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 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). The Preamble to 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 Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. ………… …………. 12. ………… 15. With a view to recapitulate the legal position, we may briefly refer to some decisions of this Court apart from those relied upon by the High Court. In a decision reported in Jaipal v. State of Haryana (1988) 3 SCC 354 it has been held to be a constitutional obligation to ensure equal pay for equal work where the two sets of employees discharge similar responsibilities under similar working conditions. In a decision reported in Jaipal v. State of Haryana (1988) 3 SCC 354 it has been held to be a constitutional obligation to ensure equal pay for equal work where the two sets of employees discharge similar responsibilities under similar working conditions. The plea of temporary or casual nature of employment or full-time and part-time employees had been negated. Similarly, in the case reported in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637 it was held that casual workers could not be denied same emoluments and benefits as admissible to the temporary employees on the ground that they had accepted the employment with full knowledge of their disadvantage. In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 619 though on facts no discrimination was found but the principle of “equal pay for equal work” was upheld and recognized where all were placed similarly and discharging same duties and responsibilities irrespective of the casual nature of work. This right had been held to have assumed the status of a fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of “equality” in Articles 14 and 16. In Daily Rated Casual Labour through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122 right of daily-rated casual workers in the P & T Department was recognized and they were directed to be paid in minimum of the scale as was admissible to the regular workers as both discharged similar work and responsibilities.” 6. Admittedly, petitioner worked on the post of State Entomologist from 1988 to 2010, he was never on deputation and as such, he is entitled for difference of salary for that period. 7. In view of the settled propositions of law and in view of legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to calculate the difference of amount for which the petitioner is entitled for from 1988 to 2010. Since the petitioner has already superannuated, he is also entitled for fixation of salary/ pension as per last pay drawn on the post of State Entomologist. 8. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and thereafter, if there is no other legal impediment, entire admitted dues shall be paid to the petitioner within a further period of three weeks. 9. 8. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and thereafter, if there is no other legal impediment, entire admitted dues shall be paid to the petitioner within a further period of three weeks. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.