ORDER
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. The Petitioners’ claim is founded on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The Petitioners appear to have been engaged as a Regular Muster Roll (RMR) workers in the post of Mechanic-cum-Operator in CWP No. 6565/1998. CWP 6555/1998, CWP 6552/1998, CWP 6564/1998, CWP 6553/1998, in the post of Mason in CWP No. 6554/1998 and in the post of Tyreman in CWP No. 6556/1998 which is a Group ‘C’ post. In order to prove that they have been working on this post for several years, copies of the Identity Cards and Muster Roll have been filed. This clearly evidences that the Petitioners have been working since 1986 as an Operator. The Respondent however asserts that after their appointment in Group D the Petitioners were only asked to perform duties falling in this Group.
2. On 4.4.1997 the following paragraph in the Circular of the Respondent was published:
“To consider the cases of RMR workers for regular appointment, who have completed more than six years service as on 31.12.96, all eligible RMR workers were required to apply on the prescribed format (printed overleaf). This application form should reach the concerned Estt. Branch within a fortnight, duly verified by the officer in charge under whom they are working.
All the HODs are also requested to bring the contents of the Circular to the notice of RMR workers.
M.K. Gupta
Director (P)”
3. The Petitioners applied for this appointment pursuant to the Circular and were appointed as the Group ‘D’ post of Beldar, with effect form 23.10.1997. The contention of the Petitioners is that although they were regularly appointed to the post of Beldar from this date, they continued to diligently perform the duties of an Operator/Tyreman/Mason as they had been doing since their initial appointment, over a decade previously. Since the Petitioner had rendered service in the post of Operator even after 23.10.1997, they are entitled to receive the remunerations payable to Group ‘C’ employees.
4. Mr. Bansal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent very vociferously denied that the Petitioners have been performing the duties of an Operator after they were appointed to Group ‘D’. It is his contention that this was in compliance with the decision of the Respondent which is as follows:
“That all the RMR workers who are being regularised should be regularised only against group ‘D’ posts. Even if a man is working on RMR against a group ‘C’ post the person should be regularised only in group ‘D’.”
5. It is further contended that since the Petitioners had accepted regular employment in Group ‘D’, even if the duties discharged by them while they were RMR employee prior to 1997 were as a skilled workman in Group ‘C’, the subsequent demotion or acceptance of a lesser and lower post, was of the Petitioner’s own volition and they should not be allowed to stake a claim for wages other than those payable to Group ‘D’ workers. They must be bound by the terms of their regular appointment in Group ‘D’. Hence they are not entitled to emoluments of Group ‘C’ posts. Since the claims of the Petitioners is in the nature of “equal pay for equal work”, Mr. Bansal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has drawn attention to the pleadings, in particular to paragraph 7 of the Counter Affidavit, where in the last sentence it had been denied that the Petitioner is presently working as an Operator. A holistic reading of the Counter Affidavit, however, discloses that the case of the Respondent is that once the Petitioners have accepted a Group ‘D’ appointment, they are precluded from claiming emoluments payable to Group ‘C’ employees. To controvert this denial of the Respondent, Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn attention to the sundry records of the Respondent pertaining to the period post November 1997, inter alia from the Stock Register pertaining to 1998 which has bene checked and verified and countersigned by the Junior Engineer concerned, from time to time. In all these documents, the nomenclature used for the Petitioners is that of an Operator and not of a Beldar. In my opinion the submission made by Mr. Bansal should be supported by clear and unequivocal statements in the pleadings. If it is the case of the Respondent that after the Petitioner’s appointment to the Group ‘D’ post, the duties performed by the Petitioners been intentionally and purposely changed and had regressed from that of skilled workers to unskilled workers, this should have been clearly and categorically spelt out. A mere pedantic and formal denial of the Petitioners’ assertion that they continued to perform the duties of skilled workmen commensurate with that a group ‘C’ post should have been traversed in clear and unequivocal terms. Anything short of such a specific statement must be viewed by the Court as prevaricative in intent and as an evasive denial. It is difficult to accept the contention that the Respondent had changed the duties of the Petitioners after they had been appointed on 13.11.1997 to the Group ‘D’ post. This is against the natural run of events. It is difficult for a Court to close its eyes to reality and accept an unreasonable stand put forward by the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent’s own decision, extracted above, is to the effect that even if a person was working on RMR against a Group ‘C’ post, he should be regularised only in Group ‘D’. It must be expected that along with this decision the further decision to take work from such employees only of a Group ‘D’ post should have also been simultaneously taken, and should have been reduced to writing. In a reality of rampant unemployment, the Petitioner and the Respondent cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as in pari delicto, so as to be held strictly and completely governed by the express terms of the contract. It is only natural and reasonable that the Petitioners have lodged their claim for ‘equal pay for equal work’ only once they had bene appointed as a regular employees as against their erstwhile status as an RMR worker. It would have been most sanguine and imprudent for them to raise such a demand prior to regularisation as it would have had the natural consequences of incurring the wrath and displeasure of the Respondent and thereby inviting a cessation of his service.
6. The present claim is comparable to that which was pressed in CW 1799/1987. The Petitioner therein was holding the post of a Senior Translator in this High Court, but performing the duties of a Court Master, even though he had failed in the qualifying examination for the latter post. Madan B. Lokur J. held that he was entitled to the pay and emoluments of a Court Master on the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work. The argument that he had not made a representation for such salary and that had this been made he could have been reverted to the post of Senior Translator, did not find force with my Learned Brother.
7. Mr. Bansal had also raised a preliminary Objection to the effect that since the Petitioners have also initiated proceedings for regularisation in Group ‘C’ and that these proceedings are pending adjudication, this factor is sufficient reason for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. I am, however, inclined to accept the submission made by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in answer to this Objection. The question which has to be adjudicated and determined by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is as to whether the Petitioners are entitled to be regularised in the Group ‘C’ post. If the decision is in favor of the Workmen then it is arguable that the natural consequences would be that the Petitioners would be entitled to all the emoluments payable in Group ‘C’ posts. However, in the event that their claims under the Industrial Disputes Act are rejected, the present prayers would be irretrievably lost. The Petitioners have not claimed in the industrial litigation that they should be paid the wages in Group ‘C’ even if he is not regularised in this Group, on the premise of the Directive Principle of ‘equal pay for equal work.’
8. In these Writ Petitions the claims are not that the Petitioners are entitled to the regularisation in the Group ‘C’ Post. The prayer instead is that since the Petitioners were performing and fulfillling the duties and job work of a skilled workmen, i.e. Group ‘C’ employees, they should be paid in conformity with the emoluments payable in this grade. The two reliefs are wholly distinct. The claims in the present Petitions are not within the purview of the claim before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are clearly maintainable.
9. In these circumstances, the Petitions are accepted. Since I am satisfied the Petitioners have been performing the duties dischargeable in Group ‘C’, they shall be entitled to wages payable in this post with effect from 23.10.1997. This decision, however, shall have no bearing on the dispute presently being adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court on the Reference pending before it, who will independently consider whether the Petitioners are entitled to be regularised in Group ‘C’.
10. With the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.