i

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

P

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WritPetition No948012017

PETITIONER Rkumar Silare

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of M0 and others

INDEX

Se DescriptiotftheDocument Anex Page

Noe Noe

1e
INDEX 1

1
2
Copy with a81davit
of replyalong 2I2e

3 A copy of relevant extract of the Rml

work chargeand contingency

servlce I3
rules

4 Vakalatnama j13

JABALPUR FOR
8IM 111010No
DATE I
0 PIN 482058

THE RESPONDENTS
e

d
1
7 il

8611
2A711
f e1
aIa
4
2019

Site Incoalpur
CBSPL
 C

4P

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR l

1
Writ Petition No 948012017 r
8 r1 1
rA J
1
PETITIONER RcjkumarSilare 0

e
VERSUS 1 r

RESPONDENTS State of MP and others

4
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Th abOve named respondentsbegto submit as under

4
11 That the answeringrespondents most
humbly
submtted that the instant writ petitionlS filed by

11 the petitioners
praying
following
relief
To 111 the nature
Iil 1SSue a writ of the certiorarl

order dated 06062017 may kindlybe quashed

To lssue 111 the nature
iil a writ of mandamus

4
respondentsmay kindlybe directed to givethe
benefits of order passed ln case of similarly
situated employeeIAnnexure P12and Pl3 l
4Iiii To issue a writ 111 the nature of mandamus
4
respondentmay kindlybe directed to grant the
benefit of pay scale of rupees 515800 with
Il
effect from Ol 1982 the benefit of pay scale

T of rupees 9501530 with effect from O l

1986 and the benefit of pay scale of rupees

with effectfrom Ol1996 and lo

e

and refixe their salary calculate the

entire arrears of salary and to pay the said

amount to the petitioners

4

2e iniuu
1
Any other writ of direction as the Honble Court
may deem fit in the circumstance of the case

Date 1 0710912017
By 1
Verified Niket Trivedi
Site Incharge
Jabalpur
 r3

2 That the answeringrespondentmost humbly

submitted that ln the instant writ petition the
petitionersseeks quashingthe order dated 06
2017 where by the of the petitioners
was
rejected The petitionerinter alia contended
that theyare the pump operatorswhich is class III

post and equivalentto the tlme keeper bill clerk

progress man therefore the
and meter reader
benefit 1ee the pay scale of Rs 515800 is also be

givento the petitionerscis the same

disputehas
already been resolved lIl the case of Laxmi

Naraljan Upadhtjazja Vse State of Madhtja

Pradesh It is also contended by the petitioners
that

they have earlier filed the writ petition No

17 before this Honble Court which
2770120 was

disposedof vide order dated 072017 with the

direction to consider the representationof the

petitionersin the light of the order passedby this
court in the case of Ae L Thakur and others Vse
State of Madhya Pradesh lWP No 1605412003
within a
period of 90 days The petitionershave
relied upon the judgmentof R K Lakhera and
others Vs State of M P others IWP NO
which was decided on 1320 12
T which
the writ appeal WA No
been filed and the same was also dismissed on
1
0 122013 The SLP againstthe order dated 0Cl
de No
has also been filed and the Hon ble Apex
has dismissed 111 same vide order dated
the

09Ol2015
25

3 That the petitionersin the lnstant writ petitionhas

also based their contentions on the fact that the

Date 1 0710912017
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Site Incharge Jabalpur
 lel

n1

post of Pump Operator Telephone Attended

ProgressMan Time KeeperBill Clerk Meter Reader
and Ameen are lIl the same cadre however the

petitionerswere not given the similar benefit of

revised pay scale On such premisesthe petitioners
have this
preferred lnstant Writ petition

4 That the answeringrespondentmost respectfully

i1 submits that all such contentions are misconcelved

baseless and incorrect and are therefore denied

There is absolutelyno legalityor infirmityin the

l
actlOIl of the answeringrespondentsso as to

warrant any kind of interference of this Honble

1 Court in exercise of its extra ordinary wrlt

jurisdiction The instant writ petitionthus filed by
the petitionerbeingbereft of merit deserves to be

4
dismissed

5 That the answeringrespondentsmost humbly

il submit
that from the bare perusalof the impugned

order dated 0620 17 innexure

Ie81it reveals
that status of the petitioners1S entirelydifferent
than the case of Time Keeper Bill Clerk Ameen
ProgressMan The respondentno2 in para 5 of the

1 order dated 0620 17 by way of comparative

Q
chart has demonstrated that the educational
T of category Kal and Khal is all
different 111
as the perons category Kal
less qualification for being eligible to

on
the post mentioned in the said category
lIl
categoryIkhalthere lS a requirementof

25 AlJ6
more
higher qualification for appointment111 the
said category Further lt 1S mentioned hat along
il with the educational qualification the nature of
Date 0710912017
1
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Site Incharge Jabalpur
 6

work is different in as much as Time

Keeperswork ls to collect information the

regarding
constructlOn workl malntenance work its progress
takingattendance of labours and also to control

them However the Pump Operators

contingencies
work is to operatethe pump and to maintain it It is

to mention that equalpay must depend

111
upon the nature of work done and the case in

hand there is a
qualitativedifference as
regards
reliabilityand responsibilityof work between the

work done by the petitionersand the work of the

with
persons whom the petitionersare claimingthe
parity

6 That the answeringrespondentmost humbly

submits that ln case of A L Thakur and others Vs
State of M P E others Supralthe petitioners
were

Time Keepersand their claim was based upon the

case
of Larmi Narayan Upadhyaya Vse State of
IVI P others 1991 l MPLSR 2671where in the

applicantswho are
workingon the post Amin under
the of irrigation departmentare
entitled to get the pay scale of Rs 515800 on the

count that some of the similarlysituated persons

have been grantedthe said pay scale This Honble

Court in the A L Thakur case the
considering case
T
Laxmi Narayanhas observed that if such a

111 case
730
Laxmi NarayanS supral was

RegtlNOe acepted by the respondentstate it cannot be said

the order would not be applicable case of

similarlysituated persons

From the bare perusalof the findingsrecorded

111
2 5 AUG2011 the case of A L Thakur this Honble Court has

Date 1 0710912017
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Site Incharge Jabalpur
 6

found the Time Keepersare similarlysituated with

Amin however ln the present case the categohe
and the
presentpetitioners tlme keepersand Amins
1S
apparentlydifferent as can be seen from the
schedule enclosed with work charge and
contingencyserVlce employeerules A copy of

relevant extract of the work chargeand contingency

servlce 1S filed herewith
employee rules as

Annexure Rml

7 That keepingjuxta position the case of Laxmi

NarayanUpadhyayaSupral A L Thakur case

Supral with the present petitioners case the

features are tllat il the Pump
OperatorTelephone
Attendant Wire Man Assistant
Mechanioresent are
havingthe work
of less responsibility
and reliabilityln comparlson to

the Time Keepersand Amin as reflected from the

order dated 060620 17 Therefore these posts have

been and put lnto the different category

categorized
1e
3kal and 3Khaj and their eligibility
qualificationis also different It would notbe outof
place to mention at this juncturethat the Honble
SupremeCourt ln case of Federation Of All India

Customs And Central Excise

recognizedlVs UOI c others 198813 SCC 91 while

7e the principleof equalpayfor equalwork

observed that Equal pay for equal work ls a

1 righ13ut equalpay must dependupon

nature of the work done It cannot be judgedby
mere
volume of uork there may be qualitative
difrence as regards reliabilityand responsibility

but theresloonsibilities
25 Al 201 Functions ma be the same

a malce difrence Oftenthe difrence lS a matter of

Date 1 0710912017
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Site Incharge Jabalpur
 7

degreeand there lSan element of value judgment

by
those who are chargedwith the administration ln

fxing the scales of pay and other conditions of

servlCe
long as such value judgmentis made
So

bonaflde reasonablyon an intelligiblecriteria

having a rational nexus with the object of
cfferentiationsuch difrentiationwill not amount to

discrimination Equal pay for equal work ls a

concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution But it

follows that equalpay for unequalwork will be a

11
negation
ofthatright
Aforesaid judgmenthas relied uponby the Honble
SupremeCourt case ln State of U P c others Vs

IvIinisterial Karamchari Sanqh 119981 1 SCC

4 The Honble Court while considering

Supreme
the judgmentof Federation OfAll India Customs And
Central Excise ecognizedl5upra
while placingreliance has said that the judgmentof
administrative authorities concernlng the

responsibilitywhich attach to the post and the

degreeof reliability of
expected lnCome bandwould
be a value judgmentof the authorities concern

which if arrived at bonafide reasonablyand

rationally was not open to interference by the
court

e
That the answeringrespondents most humbly
that for appointment with the post of
A5 istant Mechanic Pump Operator Wire Man
1
1
TelephoneOperator who 1S not in the
s461
khal there lS a educational eligibility
criteria is fixed ie 111
two parts the part 2 requires
8th passed certificate and one years tralning
2 5 AUG2017
class
Date 1 0710912017
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Site lnchargeJoalpur
 0

certificate from ITI on the other hand for

appolntment on the post ofTime Keepers Bill Clerk

Ameens there is a
requirement
of HigherSecondary

passed111 mathematics Lookingto the education

qualificationcriteria there is a vast difference as one

1S 8th passed and other lS

Higher Secondaryln
maths The Honble Supreme Court while

consideringthe aspect of education qualification111

recruitment has analyzed the applicability of
principalof equalpay for equalwork in catena of

judgmentln as much as the Honble Apex Courtin

ShyamBabu Verma Vs Union of India 199412

SCC 521 has held that the nature of work may be

more or
less the same but scale pay mayvary based
on
academic qualification or experiencejustifies
classification The principalof equalpay for equal
work should not be applied in a mechanical
manner
Classification made by a body of experts
after full studyand analysesof the work should not

be disturb accept for strongreasons which indicate

the classification made to the unreasonable

Inequalityof the men ln different groups excludes

applicabilityof the principalof equal pay for equal

work to them In the present case it is an admitted

position the qualification which was required for

appolntment on the post of Time Keeper Ameen
Clerk 1S
Meter Reader entirely different than

appolntment on the post of Assistant

1k
oJPJPNOee
Ml
Regd M 5chanics Pump Operators Wire Man Assistant
OperatoretCe The Honble SupremeCourt
Harayan State Electricity Board and others

Vse
interpreting 1200912 SCC 231 while
25 uG Gulsan Lal
the
others
concept of equalpay for equal work

Date 1 0710912017
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Site Incharge Jabalpur
 has relied upon the judgmentof Dev Narayan
Shyam Vse State of West Bangal1200512 SCC
286 where in the Honble SupremeCourt has held
44
that Sufce it to say that the principallS
settled if the two categories
ofpostperformthe same
dutyand nctions and carry the same
qualiflcation
then there should not be any distinction in pay scale

between the two categoriesof posts similarly

situated But when they are difrent and perform
clifrent duties and qualcation for Pecruitment
being difrent then they cannot be said to be

equatedso as to qualifyfor equalpay for equal

wor

9 That it is to mention
noteworthy at this juncture
that the Honble High Court Harayan State

111 41
Electricity Board Isupral para of its

judgmentcame to the conclusion tha same or

similar nature of work by itselfdoes not entitle an

emploeeto invoke the docotrine of equalfor equal

work Quaflcation experienceand other factors
would be relevant for the said purpose Admittedly
ln
petitionthere is a difference of
the instant writ

qualificationand work of the petitionersand the

other persons like Time Keepers Bill Clerks Amin

Meter Reader which are in category 3khal of the

More over in the present case the situation is

different for the petitionersas their work is

W
all togetherdifferent from the person with

they are claiming parity as there is a

difference as
regardsreliability and
work 111 above
25 AUC2017responsibility of as discussed

paragraphsand also ln the impugnedorder dated

06062017

Date 1 0710912017
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Site Incharge Jabalpur
 IO

10 That the Honble SupremeCourt in MP Rural

AgricultureExtension Onlcer Association Vs

State of MadhyaPradesh c19another 200414 SCC

646 while dealingwith the issue regarding

different

payscale employee
belonging
to the same cadre has

relied upon the prepositiondespitethe fact that the

have been similar duties and
performing
functions and their posts are lnter changeablea
valid classification can be made on the basis of their

educational qualification

11That ln vlew of the forgoingsubmissions and in

thelight of the judgmentspassedby the Honble

Supreme Court it can be safelyconcluded that the

petitionersare havingthe different educational

and
qualification different work than the posts 1

Time Keepers Amin Meter Reader Bill Clerk as

mentioned 111 of Rules also the work of

khal
Man 1S the
Progress entirely different then

petitionersas the ProgressMan has to performthe

work i e to see daily progress of works at sites

attendance of work chargeand daily Wages stalT

and help lIl
maintainingthe records regardingthe
said work Therefore the judgmentsrelied upon by
1e
petitioners A L Thakur supralcase and R K

as these are the cases regardingthe Time

k
and ProgressMan are not applicable
in the
MD
Noee
Retde
caSCe to be
Hence the petition deserves

AlJG That answeringrespondentrespectfully submit

that the petitioners being Pump Operators
TelephoneOperators Assistant Mechanic Wire Man
Date 1 0710912017
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Site Incharge Jabalpur
 1J

cannotequatedthemselves with the Amin Time

KeeperProgressMan Meter Reader Bill Clerk and

the principalof equalpay is not attracted because

there is no
equalityof work between the two

different categoriesHence the petitionersare not

entitled for any such relief which lS not permissible

ln the eyes of law
13That ln vlew of the aforementioned submissions
the order dated 0620 17 does not suffers with

any legalityorln equality

and also not in violation of
fundamental rights under article 14 of the

Constitution of India and no case has been made

out lIl
warranting
interference of this Honble Court
exerClSe
of its extra ordinary wrlt jurisdiction
Therefore this petitionsans merit and deserves
be dismissed

14 That the answeringrespondentsat present are

not filingparawisereplyto the petitionhowever they

reserve their rightto file the same as and when an

occaSlOll
arises with the kind permissionof this
Honble Court or directedby this Honble Court

15 An affidavit lIl
support of this reply is filed
herewith

Jabalpur G

Dated For
pl 402050

Advocate for the respondents

30NaPl vn JBP
NO

zoll
 5 G
0 paarJ 5
1
i rP r 0
r 1
1 0
I2
e40oe3e1
r e
e
1 e
e
1
2
3
3 r
5
1
1A
r
1
ar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 8

d4 1

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR t

e
6
Pl

Writ Petition No 948012017 Ye e5

5 Ihr3l1r I
r

PETITIONER Silare
Rajkumar
VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of MP and others

AFFIDAVIT

I RS ChoudharySlo Shri Shriram ChaoudharyAla

60 years Executive EngineerE1M Division No 2 Bargi
District Jabalpur OlC of the case do hereby
solemnlystate on oath as underl

le That the case

deponentis the officer Inchargeof the
on
behalfof respondents
and is conversanl wilh lhc
facts of the case

2 That that the contents of the instant replyfrom para 1

to on the baisi of information

end are true and correct
received from the record ofgthe case and documents

T theretoand believed to be true by me

0413186
F9ccNo tNll J8P 2
10 NO
ElM DlS 80244
1
88
e

VERIFICATION Nag

R the abovenamed deponent do

25 04Ull the contents
verifythat of paras 1 to 3 of the

above affidavit are true to the best of my personal

and belief Signed and verified on

5 AlJI201lgust2017 at Jabalpur

Dlv 83 2
Date 1 0710912017 0241
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Et
2058
Site Incharge Jabalpur
 1 te11 1 Pm
511 C
1 Vr 9
Iem
15 1
1 61 71l
V
Z r1b 0
2 Z Z
0
76911 Pamem
4
ameanea 1
L

CV
1c

j
Ol YADAV
4
1
NOTARY
Identilter
ae40

1S

t iownJBP
No 1ePe
1

25 AlJG

Date 1 0710912017
Verified By 1 Niket Trivedi
Site Incharge Jabalpur
 i8l Yl Rll
9e pweeiliP r 179 1
41W 4cFNl
1
29 039 49 05
5
Cnl
1i 31 4 5
1
e4

6Tr 7T 44 T RfW1T
1 0
W
TI a W 3T W17 1
891
8FR W T8 5100 IT
c6 400005253 1
lV
C115IOl r4
100 R 3Ttrr8f f 4 f 100
rt
Z
1 31 84198
TT I q T f6T4
3117N
8U
s
1
24 T
3
P

t 1 445635 11 T44 45 lJH 1 2T9451 74T

1 fE4
1 1
T f 6T C11581 5 4 4Z 57880 100 1T
7 1
8 i2 1
8FIT 4T 1
15 3 1
e
1 6T425 443T 9r4 1
5 cT rr 50 1 2T83T 2 I 11 78 734
P 9 l
eq I 71 l 9

1
W TET T r
1
31fr 1
1
4 C26T 1
37514 1
6119I4ef
r

Tr8
1
I 4
3
3
f r 8T
r
3f4 1 1 8
9 37T3
9TW 41
9 0
8W3 iT
1

1 4
Cle 3 1 l
f l
9T 6e TT3 63509501 100
fe
3
3l
0249 Terrsj P l 1TP3t YR9 ETU
1
T
445635 7T OT 100 3818 1

7
1
f 7 249
94 e
3

729 3E7R 1 TlT 1

84 289
1

1 4c9T 94 T i l l
a3118R
H

46TZE5I
3
C40 47918VS
rq
445635 f 311 7

Z 100 8 9U 44Iei
1
l 3 1 3r Ii 1
f6lV 1
4 515
J 9TR 100 Hf4N8
19 7 C 7 T 740180 f
j
50 37 9AT 4T 3T
49v rr
a e

4t
e
e
U 117 Y 4 I c 9 T
4 wu
e n

74r
n
4 4
2 1 i r
7 4 1
Date 1 e
1T T OT
T
n9

2 T8 8 utiv0 rloil16 31f1TG1

i 4

Site Incharge
Jabalpur lJOe 6

s1M Division r