Gujarat High Court
Diwaliben Babaldas Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 24/07/2025
Pronounced On : 11/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19133 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19172 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19269 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
========================================================== DIWALIBEN BABALDAS PATEL Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
========================================================== Appearance: in SCA/19133/2015 MR. N.V. SOLANKI FOR MR.RAJESH B SONI(2632) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. HENIL SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - Trust ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents.
2. Since the prayers and facts involved in the present petitions are having almost identical facts, and the issues involved in the present petitions are almost identical in Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined nature, hence, with the consent of the parties, the matters are heard together and decided together and Special Civil Application No.19133 of 2016 is considered as lead matter.
3. The present lead petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.19133 of 2016 is filed by the petitioners for seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) admit this petition.
And
(B) to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus and/or
certiorari or in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other such order and directions declaring the impugned action and decision of the respondents no.1 and 2 Governemnt dated 15.12.2014 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
And (C) an appropriate order and/or directions against the respondents for parting with the monthly salary of the petitioners on the existing pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 under the ICDS Scheme which is being presently granted by them to rest of the Supervisors (Female) employed by them under such scheme, be passed and such payment be continued to her on the basis of such pay scale only that may be revised from time to time by the respondents herein. Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined (D) an appropriate order or direction to make payment of the entire differential amount of salary to the petitioners herein which is legally liable to be paid to her on the basis of existing pay scale and earlier prevailing pay scale since the date of her appointment and in commensurate with the revision of such pay scale made from time to time and as per the recommendations of 5th and 6th pay commission be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents herein and they be directed to make payment thereof in the stipulated time that may be fixed by this Honourable Court and to facilitate the compliance of such direction that may be issued by this Honourable Court in this petition, the respondent no.1 and 2 Government be directed to release the necessary financial grant in favour of the repsondent no.3 trust, if such financial grant has not been paid or parted with to the respondent trust so far by the Government in that regard. (E) Any other order deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case be passed.
(F) cost of this petition be awarded from the respondents."
4. Brief facts as stated in the memo of lead petition are as under:
4.1 It is the case of the petitioners in this lead petition Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined that the petitioner is appointed as Supervisor (Female) i.e. MukhyaSevika on 1.07.1986 under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme launched and introduced by the Govt. of India in coordination with the State Govt. The respondent No.3 Trust is an intermediary Implementing Agency who is implementing such scheme under the direct control and supervision of the respondent Govt. No.1 & 2. The State Government is receiving 100% financial grant from the Govt. of India for defraying the expenses to be incurred for the scheme which includes the salary etc. of all the employees appointed by the trust under the such scheme. The petitioner has thus served with the respondents on the post of such supervisor (female) continuously since 01.07.1986 and is presently discharging her duties without any stigma on her part. It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner was at the time of her appointment paid her monthly salary on the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 while other such Mukhya sevikas who were though subsequently appointed & who used to discharge similar service in all respects were being paid their monthly salary in the pay scale of Rs.
4500-7000. For reasons best known to the respondents, Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined not only that since 01.04.2005, the respondents started work as part time with her monthly salary on fixed basis i.e. @ Rs.6000 p.m. on fixed basis only instead of the prevailing pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200, whereby the others such Mukya sevikas are receiving their monthly salary on such pay scale & thus, are getting approximately Rs.39,000 to Rs.40,000 p.m. It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that all the respondents have adopted such discriminatory and arbitrary approach, attitude and action towards the petitioner in an illegal manner & contrary to the spirit & object of the ICDS scheme in the matter of her monthly salary which has resulted into great economic loss and patent injustice to the petitioner so far. Hence, the respondent no.3 trust & the petitioner had made various representation in writing to the respondent respondent Nos. 1 & 2 inter alia requesting them to eliminate such discrimination & unjust approach qua the petitioner and the said matter was under contemplation & consideration of the Govt. too. However, they were not taking any decision thereon for a quite a long time stood lapsed.
4.2 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined hence, the petitioner & such others had approached this Hon'ble Court by way of filing Special Civil Applicaiton No.6644 of 2014 and had sought directions of this Court for the same. This Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 05.05.2014 had also directed the Govt. to take the decision at an earliest but the Government had failed to do so. However, in such situation, the petitioner along with others had been constrained to file contempt petition & thereafter only the Govt. did take a decision vide its order dated 15.12.2014 whereby instead of considering such issue in its proper perspective & in a lawful manner, the govt had on the contrary refrained from treating the petitioner & such others their employees even & had thrown the entire burden on the respondent no.3 trust. It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that in such situation, the petitioner had again made joint representation dated 30.12.2014 but is remained of no consequence & hence the present petition has been preferred.
5. Heard Mr. N.V. Solanki, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Soni, learned advocate for the petitioners in the respective petitions, Mr. Himesh Naidu, Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined learned advocate for the respondent No.3 - Trust and Mr. Henil Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
6.1 Mr. N.V. Solanki, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Soni, learned advocate for the petitioners in the respective petitions has by drawing the attention of this Court towards the facts of the present case that during the year 1986-88, the petitioners were appointed as Mukhya Sevika (supervisor) in ICDS Scheme on temporary basis. He has submitted that the programme, which is going on under the ICDS scheme is of Union Government, who has provided funds to the State Government to implement the programme and in turn, the State Government has provided necessary grant to the concerned Authority. In the present case, it is respondent No.3 - trust to meet with the necessary expenses to implement the scheme. Accordingly, the State Government has approved the necessary expenses and passed appropriate order regarding the mandatory benefits to the present petitioner till the year 2002. He has further submitted that from 01.04.2005, the petitioners are getting fixed pay of Rs.6000/- p.m. and Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined some of the petitioners are getting Rs.9000/- per month as fixed pay. Furthermore, he has submitted that petitioners have approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.6644 of 2014, whereby this Court has passed the order directing the State Government to take final decision on the issue of regularization and regular pay of these petitioners. Thereafter, on 14.12.2014, the State Government passed order by directing that these petitioners were appointed on temporary basis due to scarcity of graduate candidates at the relevant point of time and petitioners having been non-graduate candidates, were appointed at the relevant point of time, but while approving the appointment of the petitioners, the State Government has passed the order by directing the respondent No.3 to replace them as soon as they get qualified candidates. Thereafter, the State Government has extended the contracts of the petitioners periodically and from 01.04.2002, the Government has decided to stop grant to seven Mukhya Sevikas, who are petitioners before this Court. By way of this order, the Government has clarified that these Mukhya Sevikas are the employees of trust and not the government employees and, therefore, the present Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined petitions are filed by praying to give existing regular pay of 5200-20200 to the petitioners and give difference amount of salary also.
6.2 He has further submitted that thereafter by way of Misc. Civil Application, the Court has directed the respondent-trust to give transfer to the petitioners but the petitioners were not permitted to resume the duties as respondent has submitted that respondent authority has to take proper legal advice from the Advocate. He has further submitted that such action of the respondent No.3 Authority, who entered into contract with the State Government, where the petitioners were not party on that basis the service of the petitioners are terminated after so many years where the petitioners have worked as Mukhya Sevika and even after non-receipt of grant in the year 2002, the petitioners have worked in fixed salary of Rs.6000/- and Rs.9,000/- with the respondent No.3 trust by discharging their moral duty and, therefore, he has submitted that by applying to the principle where other Mukhya Sevikas are getting pay scale of 5200-20200, there is no reason not to grant the same pay scale to the petitioners, who are similarly Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined situated by applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and, therefore, he has submitted that impugned action of the respondents are arbitrary and improper and required to be interfered with by granting the prayers prayed in the present petitions in view of several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the judgment of this Court, however, he has not cited specific judgment at the time of making his arguments and, therefore, he has prayed to allow the present petition.
7.1 Per contra, Mr. Himesh Naidu, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 - trust in Special Civil Application Nos.19133 of 2015 and 19172 of 2015 has submitted that the respondent No.3 is an autonomous body executive welfare activities. He has further submitted that the trust is running independently and its work is based on donations and on money of the trustees to meet the financial expenses and normally the respondent No.3 trust does not get any fund from the Government. He has further submitted that there is no direct control of Government and, therefore, his objection about the maintainability of petition as looking to the prayers of Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined the present petition, the respondent No.3 cannot be considered as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that the present petitioners are also regulated by the Rules of the trust. He has submitted that initially, the trust was getting fund from the State Government to pay salary to the petitioners till the year 2002 but after the year 2002, it was stopped as these petitioners are not having necessary education qualifications as required for the said post. He has also submitted that as directed by this Court in Civil Application, the trust has given transfer but the petitioners do not resume their job. He has further submitted that there is no case of oral termination.
7.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied on the judgment dated 03.02.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1524 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No.3931 of 2004, more particularly, paragraphs 19 and 20 of that judgment is relevant and has that the present petition is required to be dismissed.
8.1 Mr. Henil Shah, learned Assistant Government Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined Pleader for the respondent-State has submitted that the present petition is misconceived as there is no dispute that initially, the State Authority is implementing authority of the ICDS scheme for the funds received from the Central Government. Accordingly, when the petitioners were appointed by the respondent No. 3 in the year 1986-88, such permission is granted initially for five years on condition that whenever respondent No. 3 trust will find the qualified candidate as per requirement, the services of the petitioners will be discontinued by the trust, however, till the year 2002, the respondent trust could not find suitable candidate and by considering various aspects including the financial burden, the State has decided not to grant any amount further towards the payment of salary of the petitioners as they are not having necessary requisite qualification and such appointments are made for the limited period on the temporary basis. Considering the other relevant aspects, the funding to the respondent No. 3 trust is stopped for the payment of salary of the petitioners, who are Mukhya Sevikas. Thereafter, the respondent trust has continued their services by paying some fixed amount from their own fund and, therefore, in any case Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined from the factual scenario also, the liability of the respondent State came to be ceased from the year 2002. Moreover, there is contract between the trust and the State Government that the trust will look after all the expenses of such petitioners and State is not responsible after the year 2002 for such payments. Learned AGP has further submitted that requirement of these petitioners are on temporary basis as they were not qualified as per requirement of scheme and their services cannot be regularized. He has further submitted that equal pay for equal work is not applicable to the temporary basis employees.
8.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied on the following judgment, which reads as follows:
(i) Harbans Las vs. State of H.P. reported in (1989) 4 SCC 459,
(ii) Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union vs. Unior of India reported in (1991) 1 SCC 619,
(iii) State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj reported in (2003) 6 SCC 123,
(iv) State of Punjab vs. Surjit Singh reported in (2009) 9 SCC 514.Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined 8.3 He has submitted that in view of the above, the present petitioners could not establish their case that they were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding corresponding post and having similar qualification of the regular employees. He has also relied on one more judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma and Another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97, and has submitted that the Court has held in this judgment that it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of pay scales to be left to an expert body. Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post, and that the court's interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues and, therefore, learned AGP has submitted that there is no reason to grant any relief in the present positions as the Authorities have acted in just and reasonable manner and in accordance with law and, therefore, the present petitions are Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined required to be dismissed.
9.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar by the respective parties. I have also considered the necessary requirement pursuant to the notification of Government dated 03.06.1989 for the post of supervisor (female) in Integrated Child Development Service Programme Class-III, who are considered as Mukhya Sevikas. The requirement as per Rules 2 and 3 of Notification dated 03.06.1989 of the Gujarat Government Gazette, 6.7.1989, Health & Family Welfare Department reads as under:
"2. Appointment to the Post of the Supervisor (Female) in Integrated Child Development Services Programme Class III, in Gujarat Public Health Services shall be made by direct selection.
3. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the Post mentioned in rule 2 a candidate shall-
(a) not be more than 28 years of age
(b) (i) possession of a degree of Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition of a recognized University or
(ii) have passed secondary school certificate examination Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined with 11 months training of Balsevika and 8 years experience as either Balsevika or Anganwadi Worker or both under Integrated Child Development Services Scheme or Nutrition Programme, under Public Health Services or.
(iii) have passed secondary school certificate examination and have 10 years experience as an Anganwadi Worker Under Integrated Child Development Services Programme under Public Health Services.
Provided that the upper age limit may be relaxed in favour of a candidate mentioned in sub clauses (ii) and (ill) of clause (b) of rule 3 to the extent of the period served as Balsevika or as the case may be. Angawadi worker, subject to a maximum relaxation of 15 years and upto the age of 45 years.
Provided further that the upper age limit may be relaxed in favour a candidate possessing exceptionally good qualifications.
Provided also that the upper age limit may be relaxed in favour of a candidate belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes or socially and economically backward class in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services. Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 as amended from time to time."
9.2 Considering this with the factual background, there Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined is no quarrel about the fact that in the year 1986-88, the petitioners were appointed as Mukhya Sevikas by the respondent No. 3. It is also not in dispute that the programme for ICDS scheme is carried out by the State Government through executing bodies like respondent No. 3 trust, and the funds are being given by the Central Government to the State Government for implementation of such scheme and State Government is taking help of such local bodies/authorities like the present respondent No. 3 trust for implementing of that scheme in some of the cases. In the present case, the respondent No. 3 has appointed the present petitioners, who are not holding the requisite qualifications and at the time of giving approval, the State Government has given approval initially for five years on condition that as soon as the candidates, who are having requisite qualification, are found by the respondent-trust then the services of the petitioners, who are not having requisite qualifications, will be put to an end and this situation was continued and thereafter, some repeated extensions by the State Government is given to the respondent No. 3-trust till the year 2022, and in the year 2002, the State Authorities have found that the petitioners are not Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined qualified and not possessing requisite qualification, the payment of such salary which is given to the respondent No.3 trust is stopped and accordingly contract is also made by the trust with the respondent-State Government and thereafter, the respondent No. 3 trust paid the amount of salary to the petitioners by way of fixed salary of Rs.6000/- and Rs.9,000/-. The respondent No. 3 trust is not getting any further assistance from the State Government after the year 2002, respondent No. 3 trust is managed by the funds of donation or the funds given by the trustees and, therefore, there is some substance in the contention raised by the respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 3 is not State considering the judgment dated 03.02.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1524 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No.3931 of 2004, more particularly, paragraphs 19 and 20 of that judgment, as under:
"19. It is pertinent to note that the employer Trust cannot be said to be a "State" within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. If one looks at the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Mohan Khanna (supra), it is very clear that the Trust can never be treated as a State. The Hon'ble Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined Supreme Court has considered several factors which should be considered before considering a particular institution as a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. Looking to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have been reproduced hereinabove, we are of the view that the learned single judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the Trust is not a 'State'.
20. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the Trust is not getting any financial aid from the State of Gujarat. On the Board, which manages the Trust, there is only one member who is a government officer and other members of the Board are respected citizens or residents of a particular area. Simply because one of the members of the Board is the Collector of the District, it cannot be said that the said Trust is a "State", especially when no financial assistance is given to the Board for managing the Trust and no function of the State is performed by the Trust. We, therefore, agree with the findings arrived at by the learned single Judge that respondent No.2-Trust is not a "State".
9.3 In view of that, I am of the opinion that when the present petitions are also having other disputed question of fact involved in the present petition, it is always better for the litigant to exhaust equally efficacious statutory remedy at the first instance as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) U.P. Jal Nigam Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined and Another vs. Nareshwar Sahi Mathur And Another reported in (1995) 1 SCC 21 and (ii) M/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub & Another reported in (1998) 6 SCC 549.
9.4 I have also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court for considering the contention of the respondent No.3 in the case of Dr. C.A. Shah vs. Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute, Ahmedabad reported in (1992) 1 GLR 687, in that case, it was held that the question was whether Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute, Ahmadabad can be said to be a 'State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case also, the trust is not performing any public duty or any function of the State.
9.5 Moreover, considering the fact that the petitioners are not holding requisite qualification for the post of Mukhya Sevika and the State Government has already decided in the year 2002 not to give any fund to the respondent No. 3, no prayer can be entertained against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as being a State, they are Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined not having any liability in the facts and circumstances of the present case to pay any wages to the present petitioners after the year 2002.
9.6 It is fruitful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma and Anrther reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97, more particularly, paragraph 14 is relevant, as under:
"14. The High Court in the impugned orders passed in Writ Petition as well as in the Review Petition had thoroughly misdirected itself by applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work" placing reliance on the decision of this court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. 2017 SCC 148, which had no application to the facts of the present case. It may be noted that this court has consistently held that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. This is because such job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore, it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined pay scales to be best left to an expert body. Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post, and that the court's interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues. A beneficial reference of the observations made in this regard in case of Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Associations and Ors. 1993 Supl. 1 SCC 153 be made. As held in State of Haryana and Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association 2002 (06) SCC 72 "equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government."
9.7 In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Though the post of Mukhya Sevikas are under National Food Security Act and Right to Education Act, however, since the petitioners are not holding requisite qualification, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case more particularly when the State has stopped to give grants/funds after the year 2002 to respondent No. 3 trust and considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which are relied by learned AGP and Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19133/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined considering the facts of the present case where the petitioners could not establish their case that they were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding corresponding post and they are having requisite qualification as required for the said post. Therefore, in my view, the present petitions are found meritless and there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India found in the present captioned petitions. Considering the fact that respondent No. 3 cannot be considered as 'State', I am of the view that on all these counts, the respondent No. 3 is not 'State' as well as on merits, that the petitioners are not holding requisite qualifications, the present petitions are required to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:27 IST 2025