Karnataka High Court

Umashankara C vs The Registrar General on 22 February, 2024

Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                                          W.P No.2851/2022

                            1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

       WRIT PETITION No. 2851 OF 2022 (S-RES)

BETWEEN :

1.   UMASHANKARA C
     S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU - 560 001


2.   GEETHA N.R.
     W/O S. SUDARSHAN
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU - 560 001

3.   LATHA B
     W/O B.N. RAMEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU - 560 001

4.   PADMA T
     W/O NAGARAJA H.M
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU - 560 001

5.   B.S. RAGHAVENDRA
     S/O B.M. SHANKAR
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU - 560 001
                                       W.P No.2851/2022

                             2


6.    N. SHYAMALA
      W/O S. RAMA MOHAN
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENGALURU - 560 001

7.    S. GAYATHRI
      W/O S.V. RAMAGOPAL
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENGALURU - 560 001

8.    REKHA S
      W/O LAKSHMIKANT K
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENGALURU - 560 001

9.    R.B. HEMALATHA
      D/O R. BASAVANAGOUDA
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENGALURU - 560 001

10.   N. POORNIMA
      W/O MAHESH
      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENGALURU - 560 001

11.   DHANALAKSHMI S
      W/O PRAKASH WILLIAM
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENGALURU - 560 001

12.   SADAT ALI
      S/O ABDUL KHADAR SAB
      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENGALURU - 560 001               ... PETITIONERS

(BY SHRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)
                                                   W.P No.2851/2022

                                  3




AND :

1.   THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU - 560 001

2.   S.N. NATARAJA
     S/O S. NAGARAJ
     MAJOR
     WORKING AS COURT OFFICER
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU - 560 001                           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. B.V. VIDYULATHA, HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
QUASH THE MEMO DATED: 03.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 15.12.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

                              ORDER

This writ petition is presented with following prayers:

     (i)      Call for records;

     (ii)    Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order

quashing the Memo bearing No.HCE.13/2021 dated 3rd September, 2021 issued by the 1st Respondent produced at Annexure-A;

(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction for curing the anomaly in the Pay Scale

with regards to Section 6(b) of the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018 produced herein as Annexure-B in so far as the petitioners are concerned;

(iv) to pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioners are before this Court, calling in

question a Memo dated 03-09-2021, which rejects the joint

representation submitted by the petitioners, seeking setting

right of the anomaly of pay fixation qua the 2nd respondent

who despite being the junior to the petitioners is given a

higher pay scale than that of the petitioners.

3. Heard Sri.Sridhar Prabhu, learned Advocate for

petitioners and Smt.B.V.Vidyulatha, learned HCGP for the

respondent No.1.

4. Brief facts of the case are:

Petitioners are employees of the High Court of

Karnataka and are presently serving as Court Officers.

Petitioners were initially appointed as Second Division

Assistants and thereafter have been promoted first as, First

Division Assistants and then as Assistant Court Officers and

presently as, Court Officers. It is averred in the petition that

the 2nd respondent is also in the cadre of Court Officer. A

seniority list was notified on 08.04.2021 by the

1st respondent which depicts petitioners to be senior to

2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is with

regard to the pay scale that is granted to the petitioners and

that of the 2nd respondent.

5. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent

despite being junior to the petitioners, is drawing a higher

pay scale. Owing to this disparity in the pay scale,

petitioners submit a representation to the 1st respondent on

29.10.2020 projecting the anomalies while adopting certain

rules. The said representation was rejected without

petitioners being given an opportunity of being heard and

without considering the grievance of the petitioners. This

was served upon the petitioners. A memo dated

03.09.2021 was issued on this behalf. Petitioners

approached this Court in W.P.No.1189/2022 which was

withdrawn on 21.01.2022, with liberty to file a fresh

petition. Hence, this petition.

6. Shri. Sridhar Prabhu for petitioners submitted

that:

 while Central Rules were adopted by this

Court on 06.03.2018 in terms of a notification,

the anomaly with regard to pay scale of the

2nd respondent and the petitioners has come

into light. Petitioners, in terms of Rule 6(b) of

the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and

Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018 ('Karnataka

Rules 2018' for short) sought to cure the

anomolies. The said prayer was rejected by

the impugned memo without considering the

contents of the representation of the

petitioners;

 petitioners are entitled to their pay to be

equivalent to that of 2nd respondent, as all of

them are presently in the same cadre and the

2nd respondent is junior to the petitioners;

 Rule 6(b) of the Karnataka Rules 2018,

permits setting right any anomaly consequent

upon adoption of the Central Pay Rules of

2008 or 2016. He placed reliance on several

judgments of Apex Court to buttress his

submission with regard to the principle of

equal pay for equal work.

7. Opposing the petition, Smt. Vidyulatha for first

respondent submitted that the petitioners have no right to

claim that they are entitled to equivalent pay to that of the

second respondent. While adopting the pay rules, what has

emerged is beneficial to the 2nd respondent and petitioners

cannot claim as a matter of right that they should be

granted that particular pay scale. Petitioners are being

given the pay scale applicable to the Court Officers and what

is granted to the 2nd respondent is also the same.

8. I have carefully considered rival contentions and

perused the records.

9. Based on the submission on both sides, the

question that arises for consideration is:

Whether there is any anomaly in the pay scale of the

petitioners in comparison to that of the 2nd respondent?

Re-point(i)

10. Undisputed facts of the case are, the entry of

service of the petitioners is with the cadre of Second Division

Assistants and have travelled upto the cadre of Court

Officers. In terms of the notification dated 06-03-2018 the

High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay

Rules, 2018 was notified adopting Central Civil Services

(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and Central Civil Services Pay

Rules, 2016 to all the officers of the 1st respondent with

effect from 06.10.2004.

11. Anomaly had arisen in the pay scale after

adoption of the Rules 2008 and 2016 supra and therefore a

representation was submitted to the first respondent

seeking correction of the anomaly. Representation dated

29.10.2020 reads as follows:

"We the Court Officers who are all seniors to Sri. S.N.Nataraj in the Court Officers' cadre are submitting the below few lines for kind consideration, with regard to anomaly caused, as a consequence of adoption of Central Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay.

1. It is submitted that though, we the undersigned Court Officers are seniors to one Sri. S.N. Nataraj, in the cadre of Asstistant Court Officer, as well as, in the cadre of Court Officer. While adopting Central Pay Scale to the High Court employees, our pay is fixed at lesser levels. It is very pathetic situation that, the Pay of those who were promoted as Assistant Court Officer, even earlier to Sri. Nataraj is also fixed at the lower levels. In fact, in the State Pay structure, the Pay of earlier promotees was at higher level than the later promotees. However, because of the adoption of Central Pay Rules, those who are seniors to Sri. Nataraj, are now drawing lesser pay than him.

2. It is very germane to note that before adopting the Central Pay Scale structure, there was no such anomaly. A seniority wise comparative statement of the Basic pay of Sri. Nataraj and his seniors, is produced at Annexure-A for kind perusal.

3. It may also be noted that, if the Hon'ble Court in its dictum had ordered for pay fixation from the prospective date, our pay

would not have been less than Sri. S.N.Nataraj. We are very much obliged that the Court has directed for Pay fixation from retrospective date, but unfortunately, because of some unscientific method of Pay fixation adopted by the Central Government between 2006 and 2015, we are deprived of availing our promotional benefits, as all our promotions have taken place during the said period. As a consequence of adopting the said unscientific method of Pay fixation, anomaly has been caused to seniors. The detailed facts narrating the cause for anomaly is produced at ANNEXURE-B.

4. Under these circumstances, it is most respectfully submitted that to overcome all such anomalies, while adopting Central Pay Structure to High Court employees, a provision has been enacted in High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018. The relevant para 6(b) of the Notification bearing No.HCE 1174/2011 Dated 06th March 2018 notified in the aforesaid Rules reads as under.-

6(b) Consequent upon adoption of Central Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay to the Officers and Officials of High Court of Karnataka, anomaly, if any, shall be cured after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka.

Accordingly, under the aforesaid Rules the Hon'ble Chief Justice is vested with the Powers to cure the anomaly caused to the senior Officers.

5. In addition, it may be noted that the Government had relaxed the rules to the extent of fixing minimum basic pay to the promotees in the cadres in which there is an element of

Direct recruitment. It is learnt that the Accountant General has addressed a letter to the Registry in this regard. The same may be called for from the Establishment branch. This aspect of relaxing the rules goes to show that the Pay Fixation Rules are not mandatory in nature and they are directory in nature and they can be relaxed, in order to meet the ends of justice.

6. It is further submitted that, it is a common phenomenon that certain anomalies like junior drawing higher pay than his seniors will occur while implementing the New Pay Commissions both at Central and State Government levels. Hence, in order to overcome such anomalies, always, an option would be incorporated in the Rules itself to 'Step up' the Pay of Senior Officials to that of Junior, drawing higher Pay. This shows that pay of seniors has to be equated or stepped up with that of junior whose pay is fixed at higher level.

7. It is most respectfully submitted that, it is settled principles of law that the fixation of pay of Seniors at lower levels than a Junior employee, for no fault of the senior employees is unjust and against to the principles of law. If any anomaly or inconvenience is caused while framing the Rules, the same needs to be set right. Otherwise, it amounts to injustice. In our case, the anomaly caused is the combined effect of amending the Rules to the extent of creating new channel of promotion to the Assistant Court Officer cadre from Stenographer cadre, to which we the seniors were deprived. In addition, on adoption of Central Pay Structure we lost the monetary benefits of promotions. For no fault, our pay is fixed at lesser level than Sri. S.N. Nataraj, who is junior to us.

8. Hence, provision of para 6(b) of the Notification bearing No.HCE 1174/2011 Dated 06th March 2018 culled out above from the Rules needs to be exercised in order to overcome the anomalies caused to Court Officers consequent upon adoption of Central Pay Scales and Pay Fixation. Hence, this representation.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed to direct the concerned to fix the Pay of Court Officers who are seniors to Sri.S.N.Nataraj, in the Court Officers cadres on par with his pay, from the date of his promotion as Assistant Court Officer in view of the powers vested with the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide Notification No.HCE 1174/2011 dated 06th March 2018, to cure the anomaly caused while adopting Central Pay Scale and Fixation of Pay."

12. The solitary grievance of petitioners is, the pay scale

of one S.N.Nataraja, 2nd respondent herein is higher than that of

the present petitioners. The claim of petitioners is that the 2nd

respondent is junior to petitioners in any of the seniority lists of

any of the cadres. In support of the same a seniority list dated

08.04.2021 is annexed to the petition. In the said seniority list,

petitioners are shown as senior to 2nd respondent and it is an

admitted fact that petitioners are drawing lesser salary than that

of 2nd respondent. The pay scale of all the petitioners in

comparison to 2nd respondent is that, petitioners are drawing

Rs.15,260/- as their basic for the year 2009, which is followed

throughout and even as on date the petitioners are drawing

lesser pay than that of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent

even for the year 2009, was drawing a basic pay of Rs.17,540/-

which is definitely more than the basic pay of petitioners.

Therefore, petitioners have prayed for setting right the anomaly.

13. The defence of the 1st respondent is, that the

2nd respondent was granted several increments between 2003

and 2008 in the cadre of Stenographer and thereafter was

promoted as Assistant Court Officer on 01-08-2009 and his pay

was refixed in terms of the Revised Pay Rules of 2018. It was at

Rs.10,000/- on 01-08-2019, therefore the corresponding pay

scale in the Central Revised pay scales of 2018 was at

Rs.17,540/-. It is the further defence that in respect of the

petitioners, their pay scale was fixed equivalent to the central

scale in the cadre of Typist as on 06.10.2004 while granting 10

years Time Bound Advancement and they were all promoted as

First Division Assistants, in the year 2008 and only one increment

was granted to them. As such, there is no anomaly.

14. In substance, petitioners and the 2 nd respondent are all

working in the same cadre as Court Officers. The fact that the

2nd respondent is junior to the petitioners is not in dispute.

Therefore, if petitioners are seniors to 2nd respondent and

petitioners and the 2nd respondent are performing the same

duties as Court Officers, there cannot be any anomaly while

adopting a particular pay scale in favour of the petitioners in the

year 2018.

15. Rule 6(b) of the Karnataka Rules, 2018 reads as

follows:

".....

6. Other service Conditions:

.....

(b) Consequent upon adoption of Central Pay scale and Fixation of Pay to the Officers and Officials of High Court of Karnataka anomaly, if any, shall be cured after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka.

....."

16. In terms of Rule 6(b), the employees of the Court are

entitled to seek curing of the anomaly from the hands of Hon'ble

the Chief Justice. Therefore, the representation was submitted.

The same came to be rejected by the impugned memo. The

memo reads as follows:

"With reference to the above subject, I am directed to inform that, the joint representation submitted by you requesting to set right the anomaly caused due to pay fixation on par with your Junior Sri S.N.Nataraja, Court Officer has been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court Staff Committee and the same has been approved by Hon'ble Chief Justice, that as per the opinion of Financial Advisor, that the conditions as per Rule 7 read with Note 10 of both 6th Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 and 7th Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 are not fulfilled."

17. The memo takes shelter under Rule 7 r/w Rule 10 of

the 6th Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 and 7th

Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules of 2016 to reject the

claim of petitioners that they do not fulfill the conditions

prescribed in the Rules.

18. It is the case of the petitioners that those Rules are

inapplicable to petitioners' claim. I find merit in the said

contention.

19. Rule 7 r/w Note 10 of the Rules 2008 is applicable to a

senior Government servant promoted to higher post before

01.01.2006. Petitioners were not promoted to the cadre of Court

Officers before 01.01.2006. Therefore, the issue requires to be

reconsidered by the 1st respondent, in the light of the judgments

of the Apex Court, which clearly depicts that the junior should

not be permitted to draw a higher pay scale to that of the seniors

in a solitary cadre.

20. In support of their contention petitioners have placed

reliance on the following authorities

(i) In JAIPAL V. STATE OF HARYANA1 the Apex Court

has held as follows:

".... .... ....

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the material placed before us. On a careful analysis of the same we find that the nature of duties and functions performed by instructors are similar to those performed by squad teachers. The functions and duties of both classes of persons are primarily directed to advance the cause of education to bring social awareness among the people in the rural areas and to create interest in various social economic and educational activities. Bringing adults to centre for educating them is a difficult task and to impart education to drop-outs children is not an easy job. One of the main duties of the instructors is to motivate the adults and drop-out children to participate in the

(1988) 3 SCC 354

activities and to motivate them for taking education. The instructors teach 4 hours a day and thereafter they have to do survey work and motivation work in addition to that the instructors are required to carry out additional duties which are assigned to them by the Department. This is evident from the circular letter dated 4-3-1987 issued by the Joint Director, Adult Education (Annexure B) to the affidavit of Rajender Singh petitioner. The letter was circulated to all the instructors of adult and informal education, it reads as under:

"Dear

To bring adults in centres is a very difficult task. This is possible only when our centres are attractive and adults feel happy to come to the centres and forget all their worries after coming to the centre. Instructors should behave with the adults in such a way that they think him their friend and guide. The adults should be told that by hearing, reading and writing, they can know about the government schemes made for their benefit and progress. Every Instructor is supposed to know about all such schemes so that they can guide their students. The adults should get the guidance from the instructors as to how they can get loans from various banks and cooperative societies. In the coming year we must equip the instructors with training so that they can fulfil the responsibility given to them.

In a meeting held at Karnal you were told about the facilities being given to widows and old persons. You have to properly propagate the same.

I will be very grateful to you for circulating this letter to all the instructors and supervisors.

Office Distt. Adult Education Officer, Karnal. Page No. A- d-4/3480-659, Karnal dated 13-3-1981.

One copy of the letter to be circulated to all instructors and supervisors of Adult and Informal Education for necessary action.

District Adult Education Officer, Karnal, 13-2-1987."

The aforesaid duties which are required to be performed by the instructors are in addition to their four hour teaching duty. Further the instructors are required to organise sports like kho-kho, kabadi and athletics, and to participate in the local functions and to motivate affluent villagers to give donations for the adult education scheme. This is evident from a circular letter issued by the District Adult Education Officer, Ambala on 12-11-1986 (Annexure C to the affidavit of Rajender Singh). Having regard to these facts and circumstances we are of the view that there is no difference in the nature of duties of the instructors and squad teachers and both of them carry out similar work under the same employer. The doctrine of equal work equal pay would apply on the premise of similar work, but it does not mean that there should be complete identity in all respects. If the two classes of persons do same work under the same employer, with similar responsibility, under similar working conditions the doctrine of "equal work equal pay" would apply and it would not be open to the State to discriminate one class with the other in paying salary. The State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work."

(ii) In MEWA RAM KANOJIA V.ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF

MEDICAL SCIENCES2, the Apex Court has held as follows:

"4. The doctrine of "Equal pay for equal work" is not expressly declared a fundamental right under the Constitution. But Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution declares the constitutional goal enjoining the State not to deny any person equality before law in matters relating to employment including the scales of pay. Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution enjoins the State that where all things are equal, persons holding identical posts, performing identical and similar duties under the same employer should not be treated differently in the matter of their pay. The doctrine of "Equal pay for equal work" is not abstract one, it is open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay for different posts having regard to educational qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the post. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is applicable when employees holding the same rank, performing similar functions and discharging similar duties and responsibilities are treated differently. The application of the doctrine would arise where employees are equal in every respect but they are denied equality in matters relating to the scale of pay. The principle of "Equal pay for equal work" has been enforced by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India [(1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] , Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. [(1986) 1 SCC 637 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 187] , V.J. Thomas v. Union of India [1985 Supp SCC 7 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 516] , P. Savita v. Union of India [1985 Supp SCC 94 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 826 : 1985 Supp 1 SCR

(1989) 2 SCC 235

101] , Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana [(1987) 4 SCC 634 :

1988 SCC (L&S) 24 : (1987) 5 ATC 136] and Jaipal v. State of Haryana [(1988) 3 SCC 354 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 785 : (1988) 7 ATC 771] . In all these cases this Court granted relief on the application of the doctrine of "Equal pay for equal work".

5. While considering the question of application of principle of "Equal pay for equal work" it has to be borne in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be among the equals. Unequal cannot claim equality."

(iii) In STATE OF PUNJAB V. JAGJIT SINGH 3 the Apex

Court has held as follows:

".... .... ....

8.D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] , decided by a five-Judge Constitution Bench:

8.1. It is not necessary for us to narrate the factual controversy adjudicated upon in this case. In fact, the main

(2017) 1 SCC 148

issue which arose for consideration pertained to pension, and not to wages. Be that as it may, it is of utmost importance to highlight the following observations recorded in the above judgment : (SCC pp. 324-25, para 32)

"32. Having succinctly focussed our attention on the conspectus of elements and incidents of pension the main question may now be tackled. But, the approach of court while considering such measure is of paramount importance. Since the advent of the Constitution, the State action must be directed towards attaining the goals set out in Part IV of the Constitution which, when achieved, would permit us to claim that we have set up a welfare State. Article 38(1) enjoins the State to strive to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effective as it may a social order in which justice--

social, economic and political -- shall inform all institutions of the national life. In particular the State shall strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. Article 39(d) enjoins a duty to see that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women and this directive should be understood and interpreted in the light of the judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] . Revealing the scope and content of this facet of equality, Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Court observed as under : (SCC p. 619, para

'1. ... Now, thanks to the rising social and political consciousness and the expectations aroused as a consequence, and the forward-looking posture of this Court, the underprivileged also are clamouring for the rights and are

seeking the intervention of the court with touching faith and confidence in the court. The Judges of the court have a duty to redeem their constitutional oath and do justice no less to the pavement-dweller than to the guest of the five-star hotel.'

Proceeding further, this Court observed that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. If that can't be done when they are in service, can that be done during their retirement? Expanding this principle, one can confidently say that if pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. Article 39(e) requires the State to secure that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and children of tender age are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] unsuited to their age or strength [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] . Article 41 obligates the State within the limits of its economic capacity and development, to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to provide assistance in cases of [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] , and [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] in other cases of undeserved want [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] . Article 43(3)

requires the State to endeavour to secure amongst other things full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities."

(Emphasis Supplied)

It is however impossible to overlook, that the Constitution Bench noticed Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] , and while affirming the principle of "equal pay for equal work", extended it to pensionary entitlements also."

21. In view of the above, the 1st respondent has to

reconsider the case of the petitioners, strictly in consonance with

the judgments rendered by the Apex Court referred to supra not

with reference to Rule 7 r/w Note 10 of the Rules 2008. In the

result, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.

      (ii)         Memo      dated     03-09-2021       issued      by         the

                   1st respondent stands set aside.

      (iii)        The matter is remitted to the first respondent to