AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri K.B. Mathur for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Dwivedi for the Respondent No. 2.
The petitioner 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 efaual work. It may be mentioned that Kendra originally was controlled by the Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Youth Affairs. an 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 said salaries, allowances and other benefits coordinators Government the same functions. This fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit, rather it has been admitted in para 21 of the as are being given to the appointed by the Central here as they are discharging counteraffidavit. The only difference in the two categories is in the mode of recruitment. Ii our opinion this cannot in respect of their allowances since both the the same work and make any salaries and ; categories do.
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 counterpart appointed by the Central Government and hence the remaining claim is about payment of same allowances and other benefits.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jaipal and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1504 and Bhagwan Das and others v. state of Haryana, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 12049.
In our opinion the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court squarely applied 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 the petitioners.