High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Prakash Narayan Tiwari v. Adhyaksha, Zila Panchyat, Jalaun & ors. - WRIT - A No. 31990 of 1994  RD-AH 149 (19 March 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31990 of 1994
Prakash Narain Tiwari Vs. Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat,
Jalaun at Orai
Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.
Heard Shri R.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri L.P. Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an Amin in Zila Parishad (as it then was) district Jalaun at Orai in permanent capacity. Vide order dated 31.3.1982 issued by Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Parishad, Jalaun at Orai, the petitioner was promoted as Tax Inspector on ad hoc basis till 30th June, 1982. Subsequently, again vide order dated 13.9.1982, he was promoted on temporary basis on the post of Tax Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.195-270, with other consequential benefits. The petitioner continued to work thereafter. Vide order dated 20.1.1983, his services were further continued on the promoted post temporarily with a rider that he will continue and pay his salary of Amin and the appointment on the promoted post was absolutely temporary and could come to an end any time without any intimation to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter continued to work and discharge the duties of the Tax Inspector but since he was not paid the salary of Tax Inspector nor any other benefits of the post of Tax Inspector were provided to him, he submitted several representations before the concerned authority, which remained undisposed off. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent the petitioner filed the present writ petition, which was admitted and an interim stay order was granted on 3.10.1994 directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post till 2.12.1994.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in 1994, the Zila Parishads were converted into Zila Panchayats and for the first time a post of Revenue Inspector was created on 4.8.1994. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was permanently promoted as Revenue Inspector with effect from 31.10.2002. The petitioner has been working continuously since 31.3.1982 as Tax Inspector and subsequently as Revenue Inspector since 4.8.1994.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the payment of salary as Tax Inspector/Revenue Inspector along with all consequential benefits available on the post for the intervening period from the date he has been promoted, i.e., 31.3.1982 till 31.10.2002 on the principle of equal pay for equal work, since he has been performing the work and duties of the Tax Inspector/Revenue Inspector. The learned counsel has cited many authorities in this respect.
The case of the respondents is that since there did not exist any such post of Tax Inspector as alleged by the petitioner therefore, there arose no question of making of any payment of salary for the said post or any consequential benefits thereof. It has also been denied by the respondents that the post of Tax Inspector and the post of Revenue Inspector are one and the same. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that three appointment letters which were issued in favour of the petitioner. Firstly, on 31.3.1982 followed by letters dated 25.9.1980 and 19.1.1983 promoting the petitioner as Tax Inspector on ad hoc basis on the said pay scale was under the impression that the post might be created very soon for which they had also put in all efforts but since the post was created for the first time on 4.8.1994, the petitioner at the most could be paid his salary with effect from the date the post was created. Counsel for the respondents further submits that though the mistake of issuing the appointment letters for promotion on ad hoc basis and of taking the work from the petitioner was committed by the respondents, still the petitioner was not entitled for payment of his salary for the said reasons and more so since it was specifically mentioned therein in the said letters that he shall continue to get the salary of the Amin on which the petitioner was permanently posted.
I have looked into the matter in detail and under the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply here in the instant case for the period claimed by the petitioner from 31.3.1982 to 4.8.1994 since there was no post in existence therefore, no legal inference can be drawn that the petitioner worked on the post of Tax Inspector. The right of the service of the petitioner flows from the appointment letter which in the present case discloses that the petitioner was to receive his salary on the post of Amin and more so since no post of Tax Inspector existed in the Zila Parishad at the time the letter of appointment was issued the petitioner is not entitled to any such salary for the period 31.3.1982 to 4.8.1994. However, the petitioner is entitled to his full salary as Revenue Inspector from the date 4.8.1994 the post was created till the period 31.10.2002 the petitioner was permanently promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector.
Thus, the respondents are directed to pay the difference of salary to the petitioner, calculated as of Revenue Inspector from 4.8.1994, the date the post was created till 31.10.2002, preferably within a period of three months.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed off with no order as to costs.
March 19, 2004
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.