AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.—Heard Sri K.B. Mathur for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Dwivedi for the respondent No. 2.
The petitioners are youth coordinators and their prayer is to grant equal pay and allowances and other benefits which are being given to other youth coordinators on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work. It may be mentioned that Nehru Yuva Kendra originally was controlled by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Youth Affairs and Sport of the Central Government. The petitioners'' appointments were made in the said Scheme. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not paid the same salaries, allowances and other benefits as are being given to the coordinators appointed by the Central Government whereas they are discharging the same functions. This fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit, rather it has been admitted in para 21 of the counter-affidavit. The only difference in the two categories is in the mode of recruitment, in our opinion this cannot make any difference in respect of their salaries and allowances since both the categories do the same work and functions.
The petitioners have filed a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit in which it is stated that the same pay scale has been granted to the petitioners as were granted to their counter-part appointed by the Central Government, and hence the remaining claim now is about payment of same allowance and other benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jaipal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and Bhagwan Dass and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, .
In our opinion, the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court squarely apply to the facts of this case. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to give the benefits as prayed for by the petitioners.