JUDGMENT
Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner, who is working as Lab Assistant, assailing notification dated 7th August, 1998 [Ann. 4] issued by Government in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India making amendment in Rajasthan Civil Services [Revised Pay Scales] Rules, 1998.
2. Petitioner initially joined service as Lab Assistant in Sanskrit Education department and still he is holding the post on which he initially joined service. State Government under its notification dated 7th August, 1998 revised pay scales in education department and so also in Sanskrit Department. Prior to the impugned notification there was a common pay scale for persons who are working in the respective departments on the post of Teacher Gr. III, Librarian Gr. III & Lab Assistant, but under the impugned notification w.e.f. 1st September, 1996 pay scale of Teacher Gr. III/Librarian Gr. III was revised from 4000-6000 to 4500-7000 (9A) and so far as post of Lab Assistant is concerned, they continued in the pay scale of 4000-6000 and no revision in their pay scale has taken place under impugned notification.
3. Counsel for petitioner submits that such like Lab Assistants who were absorbed as Teacher Gr. III under Absorption Surplus Rules on acquiring qualification of STC/B.Ed they are entitled to get the revised pay scale of Teacher Gr. III i.e. 4500-7000 (9A) and thus, who are junior to petitioner in the cadre of Lab Assistant on account of their absorption as Teacher Gr. III became entitled to get their fixation in higher pay scale and this action of the respondent is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel further submits that once all the three posts were in the common pay scale, there is no reasonable justification and having any nexus with the object sought to be achieved in making fixation of incumbents working on the post of Teacher Gr. III/Librarian Gr. III on higher pay scale under the impugned notification. In the absence whereof, disparity amongst the persons who are similarly situated has been created which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that petitioner is a member of department of Sanskrit Education and no absorption of Lab Assistant atleast in their department on the post of Teacher Gr. III has ever taken place. As such, the very premise on which the petitioner has submitted about persons who are similarly situated being discriminated in the facts of instant case does not arise.
5. Counsel for respondent submits that merely because there are posts which are in common pay scale they cannot be considered to be equivalent as such if fixation committee considers to grant higher pay scale to Teacher Gr. III/Librarian Gr. III taking note of their qualification and experience, petitioner cannot claim any disparity or any discrimination amongst persons who at one point of time working in the same pay scale and in absence of being similarly situated, the action of respondents will not be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. I have considered the submissions of counsel for parties and examined the material on record.
7. It is total misconception on the part of petitioner in submitting that those who are working in common pay scale are persons similarly situated and were holding the equivalent post. There being number of posts which carry common pay scale, but they cannot claim parity of pay sales for all times to come and it is always for the pay committee to examine as to what should be the pay scale of the posts which one is entitled for. Thus, submission made by counsel for petitioner that disparity amongst similarly situated persons has been created by revising pay scale for Teacher Gr. III/Librarian Gr. III granting them pay scale [9A] under impugned notification is without any substance.
8. So far as submission made with respect to Lab Assistant at one point of time being absorbed as Teacher Gr. III is concerned, suffice it to say that absorption of employees are taking place under Rajasthan Civil Services Absorption of Surplus Rules, 1959 and no parity in regard to absorption can be claimed by any individual as a matter of right. Apart from the same, as far as instant case is concerned, it has specifically been averred by counsel for respondents in their reply that no absorption in the department of Sanskrit Education from Lab Assistant to post of Teacher Gr. III/Librarian Gr. III has ever taken place and no material contrary to it has come on record. Thus, in opinion of this Court, the submission made is without any substance.
9. So far as impugned notification is concerned, it is always for the pay committee to examine in making fixation/pay scale looking to the nature of job and service being discharged by incumbent holding the post in question no parity can be claimed merely because they were at one point of time working in common pay scale and it cannot be said to be in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
10. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed.