ORDER
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. Petitioners pray to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent’s letter dated 22.6.2001 to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of the G.O. Ms. No. 546 Finance (PC) Department dated 28.9.98 to the petitioners by revising the scale of pay as granted to the Entomological Assistants working in Primary Health and Preventive Medicine Department of Government of Tamil Nadu with effect from 1.01.1996 with all attendant benefits.
2. The following facts are sufficient for disposal of the writ petition. The writ petitioners eight in numbers who were working as Entomological Assistants in Chennai Corporation seek parity of pay along with the Entomological Assistants working under the Tamil Nadu Government.
3. It is not disputed that prior to One Man Commission (1998) the post of Entomological Assistants in the Corporation was placed at par with the similar post in the Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department of the Tamil Nadu Government. Subsequently, as the pay revision eligible for Entomological Assistants in Chennai Corporation was left out, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 5755 of 2001. This Court by order dated 22.03.2001 directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners. The impugned order came to be passed on 22.06.2001. In the impugned order, it is stated that the pay scales of posts are bound to change after the recommendation of the One Man Commission and hence the parity that existed prior to One Man Commission (1998) need not be maintained. Hence the above writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is absolutely no reason in the impugned order to justify the differential treatment as between the Entomological Assistants under Corporation of Chennai with the Entomological Assistants employed by the Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department of the State Government. Neither the impugned order nor the counter affidavit filed by the Government as well as the Corporation give any reason or justification for treating two categories as different.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the corporation contends that the Corporation could not extend the benefits to the petitioners as the One Man Commission report does not include the category of Entomological Assistants in the Corporation of Chennai to have the same benefits of their counterparts in the Government.
6. In the counter filed by the Government, though it is stated that the One Man Commission had recommended revision of scale of pay in the post of Entomological Assistant in the Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, the Entomological Assistant in the Corporation of Chennai was left out. After saying so, the only reason in the counter is that the Entomological Assistants in the Corporation of Chennai are not performing identical duties and responsibilities.
7. I have heard both sides. As mentioned above, apart from merely stating that the duties and responsibilities of the Entomological Assistants in the Corporation of Chennai are not identical with their counterparts in the Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, the counter does not in any way illustrate as to in what respect the duties and responsibilities are different from that of Entomological Assistants in the Government.
8. In fact, a perusal of the counter affidavit of the Corporation of Chennai shows that there are absolutely no variation in the duties rendered by the two categories as mentioned above. In paragraph six, it is stated that the qualifications prescribed by notification for the post of Entomological Assistants in Chennai Corporation as well as for Pubic Health and Preventive Medicine Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu are one and the same and their scale of pay was also the same upto the IV Pay Commission.
9. It is further stated in paragraph seven, that the duties, responsibilities and training given to Entomological Assistants working in Corporation of Chennai and those working in Public Health and Preventive Medicine are also one and the same. Having said so, the only other reason which is given is that the claim of the Entomological Assistants before the Corporation have been omitted to be considered by the One Man Commission. It is settled proposition of law that posts prescribing the same qualification and persons discharging same nature of duties would be entitled to equal pay and allowances.
10. The reason given by the respondents that the One Man Commission (1998) had omitted the Entomological Assistants in Corporation of Chennai, cannot be a justification for denying the claim of the petitioners. That is the reason why petitioners have moved this court. Unless and otherwise the respondents are able to positively demonstrate that the qualifications for appointment or the nature of the duties are different, there is no justification for denying equality of pay and allowances.
11. In fact in the impugned order which came to be passed after the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petitions, there is absolutely no mention of any difference or variation between the duties and responsibilities of the Entomological Assistants of the Corporation on the one hand and in the Government on the other hand.
12. The reasons pleaded by the respondents that it was a policy decision taken by the Government and due to paucity of funds etc., can never be a justification for denying the lawful benefits due to the petitioners.
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.