Rajasthan High Court
Raj State Cooper Cons Fed Ltd vs Ashok Choudhary Andors on 18 February, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1070/2009
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6642/1994
Rajasthan State Cooperative Consumer Federation Ltd. Through
Managing Director, IInd Floor, Nehru Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Appellant-Non-Petitioner
Versus
1. Ashok Choudhary S/o Shri Narpat Singh Choudhary R/o
116/123, Agarwal Farm, Mansarover, Jaipur.
2. Ramji Lal Saini S/o Shri Ram Dayal Saini, R/o 116/123,
Agarwal Farm, Mansarover, Jaipur.
3. Rajender Choudhary S/o Shri Kalyan Choudhary R/o Plot
No.100, Jadgamba Colony, Jaipur.
4. Daljeet Singh S/o Sh. Bakshish Singh R/o C/o Pension Shop
SMS Hospital, Jaipur.
5. Kailash Pareek S/o Sh. Jugal Kishore R/o C/o Rajasthan Rajya
Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Medical Shop, Night Branch, Jay Kay
Lon Hospital, Jaipur.
5/1. Smt. Pushpa Pareek W/o Late Sh. Kailash Pareek R/o
12/1330, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners-Non-Applicants
6. Registrar, Cooperative Socities, Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur.
------Proforma-Non-Appellant-Non-Petitioners
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwini Jaiman Advocate
(2 of 5) [SAW-1070/2009]
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Judgment
18/02/2021
Appellant-Federation has filed the appeal challenging the
order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge,
whereby, writ petition filed by the private respondents was
allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Federation has submitted
that the Federation is having its own bye laws and has fixed pay
scales of the employees working with the Federation including
Salesmen (Medical). Private respondents could not claim pay
parity with Assistant Pharmacists working in State Government. In
support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and
Ors.Vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee,
Munger and Ors. AIR 2019 SC 2521, wherein, it was held as
under:-
"Analysis of the decisions referred to above shows that
this Court has accepted following limitations or
qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of
'equal pay for equal work':
i) The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an
abstract doctrine.
ii) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has no
mechanical application in every case.
iii) The very fact that the person has not gone through
the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases,
makes a difference.
iv) The application of the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' requires consideration of various
dimensions of a given job.
v) Thus normally the applicability of this principle must
be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert
(3 of 5) [SAW-1070/2009]
body. These are not matters where a writ court can
lightly interfere.
vi) Granting pay scales is a purely executive function
and hence the court should not interfere with the same.
It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of
problems for the Government and authorities.
vii) Equation of posts and salary is a complex matter
which should be left to an expert body.
viii) Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a
cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse
consequences.
ix) Before entertaining and accepting the claim based
on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Court
must consider the factors like the source and mode of
recruitment/appointment.
x) In a given case, mode of selection may be
considered as one of the factors which may make a
difference."
Learned counsel for the private respondents has opposed the
appeal and has submitted that the learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondents basing
reliance on the recommendations made by the Additional
Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide order dated 01.10.1991.
Learned counsel has submitted that due to typographical error, the
date was mentioned as 11.11.1991 in Annexure-5 to the writ
petition. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant-
Federation falls within the definition of State as envisaged under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and has placed reliance on
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. State Co-Op.
Dairy Fedn. Ltd. And Another Versus Rajnesh Kumar
Jamindar and Other 2009 (15) SCC 221 in support of his
argument.
Private respondents are working with the appellant-
Federation as Salesmen (Medical). Private respondents had filed
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3462/1994 claiming pay parity with
(4 of 5) [SAW-1070/2009]
Assistant Pharmacists working in State Government. The said writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.07.1994 (Annexure-
10 to the writ petition) directing the appellant-Federation to decide
the representation filed by the private respondents in terms of
recommendations made by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative
Societies on 01.10.1991. The representation filed by the private
respondents was rejected vide impugned order dated 24.08.1994.
Hence, the writ petition was again filed by the private respondents
challenging the order dated 24.08.1994 (Annexure-12 to the writ
petition).
Objection was taken by the appellant-Federation that the writ
petition was not maintainable as the Federation could not be
termed as 'State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
However, admittedly, the Federation is functioning under the
administrative control of the State Government. Thus, the learned
Single Judge rightly held that the appellant-Federation is a 'State'
as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Vide Annexure-5, recommendation was made by the
Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies that Salesmen
(Medical) working with the appellant-Federation were entitled to
the same pay scale as were being paid to Assistant Pharmacists
working in State Government. It has been noticed by the said
authority that the Salesmen (Medical) working in the appellant-
Federation were performing the same duties as were being
performed by Assistant Pharmacists working in the State
Government. It has been noticed by the authority that the
government pay scales had been made applicable in respect of
other posts.
(5 of 5) [SAW-1070/2009]
So far as the private respondents are concerned, they are
working in medical stores, as the Government itself was not
directly running the medical stores.
In the factual matrix of the present case, learned Single
Judge rightly held that there was no justification in denying the
recommendation of the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies
on 01.10.1991 (Annexure-5).
Learned Single Judge had, thus, rightly allowed the writ
petition filed by the private respondents basing reliance on the
recommendation made by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative
Societies.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Federation fails to advance the case of the appellant-Federation.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J (SABINA),J
Sanjay Kumawat-28
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
