8) FACTS OF THE CASE:

8.1) That, the petitioners are the citizen of India and they are entitled
to enjoy all the benefits or fundamental right extended to the
citizen of India that is enshrined in part III and other constitution
right under the constitution of India.

8.2) That, the petitioners are initially appointed as Assistant Veterinary

Medical Regional Officers (under Animal Husbandry Development
Department) by the order Dated 18.06.2010 and 13.03.2015. Copy
of order Dated 18.06.2010 and 13.03.2015 is annexed as
ANNEXURE P/1 Colly.

8.3) That, the petitioners are working as Assistant Veterinary Medical

Regional Officers and they are discharging their duties and
responsibilities up to their fullest extent and even though they are
revering less amount of wages in comparable with Assistant Medical
Officers (under Health and Family Welfare Department ) the wages
of Assistant Veterinary Medical Regional Officers is 5200-20200 GP
4300 and the wages of Assistant Medical Officers is 9300-34800 GP
4300 there is a massive difference between their wages and the
responsibility are more and similar as per which the petitioners have
made an representation to respondent authority (Director veterinary
survives) Dated 23.09.2017. Copy of representation Dated
23.09.2017 is annexed as ANNEXURE P/2.

8.4) That, there is a massive difference in wages between Assistant

Veterinary Medical Regional Officers and Assistant Medical Officers
in case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India, decided by a three-Judge
bench: The petitioner in the instant case, was holding the post of
Driver-Constable in the Delhi Police Force, under the Delhi
Administration. The scale of pay of Driver-Constables, in case of non-
matriculates was Rs.210-270, and in case of matriculates was
Rs.225-308. The scale of pay of Drivers in the Railway Protection
Force, at that juncture was Rs.260-400. The pay-scale of Drivers in
the non-secretariat offices in Delhi was, Rs.260-350. And that, of
Drivers employed in secretariat offices in Delhi, was Rs.260-400. The
pay-scale of Drivers of heavy vehicles in the Fire Brigade Department,
and in the Department of Lighthouse was Rs.330-480. The prayer of
the petitioner was, that he should be placed in the scale of pay, as
was extended to Drivers in other governmental organizations in Delhi.
The instant prayer was based on the submission, that he was
discharging the same duties as other Drivers. His contention was, that
the duties of Drivers engaged by the Delhi Police Force, were more
onerous than Drivers in other departments. He based his claim on the
logic, that there was no reason/justification, to assign different pay-
scales to Drivers, engaged in different departments of the Delhi
Administration.
(ii) This Court on examining the above controversy, arrived at the
conclusion, that merely the fact that the concerned employees were
engaged in different departments of the Government, was not by itself
sufficient to justify different pay-scales. It was acknowledged, that
though persons holding the same rank/designation in different
departments of the Government, may be discharging different duties.
Yet it was held, that if their powers, duties and responsibilities were
identical, there was no justification for extending different scales of
pay to them, merely because they were engaged in different
departments. Accordingly it was declared, that where all relevant
considerations were the same, persons holding identical posts ought
not to be treated differently, in the matter of pay. If the officers in the
same rank perform dissimilar functions and exercise different powers,
duties and responsibilities, such officers could not complain, that they
had been placed in a dissimilar pay-scale (even though the
nomenclature and designation of the posts, was the same). It was
 concluded, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, which
meant equal pay for everyone irrespective of sex, was deducible from
the Preamble and Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. The
principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, was held to be applicable to
cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational
classification, though both sets of employees (- engaged on temporary
and regular basis, respectively) performed identical duties and
responsibilities.
(iii) The Court arrived at the conclusion, that there could not be the
slightest doubt that Driver-Constables engaged in the Delhi Police
Force, performed the same functions and duties, as other Drivers in
the services of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government.
Even though he belonged to a different department, the petitioner was
held as entitled to the pay-scale ofRs.260-400.

8.5) That, the petitioners are discharging same and more responsibility
moreover the working condition is more critical in nature in
comparison of Assistant Medical Officer (under Health and Family
Welfare Department ) and the doctrine of Equal Pay For Equal Work
is Implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 as it is
of Article 16(1). The doctrine is also stated in Article 39(d), a directive
principle, which ordains the State to direct its policy towards
securing equal pay for equal work. The Court has enunciated the
doctrine in case of Jaipal vs. State of Haryan, AIR 1988 SC 1504, at
1509: (1988) 3 SCC 354 as follows:
“The doctrine of equal work for equal pay would apply on the premise
of similar work but it does not mean that there should be complete
identity in all respect. If the two classes of person do same work under
the same employer, with similar responsibility, under similar working
conditions, the doctrine of ‘equal work equal pay’, would apply and it
would not be open to the State to discriminate one class with the other
in paying salary.”