Suresh Kumar Son of Shri Ramani Shankar, aged about v. State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary to the

Babulal Son of Shri Bajrang Lal, aged about 42 years, Post Barber (Nai) Fourth Class Employee, posted at "A" Company, IInd Battalion, RAC, Kota (Raj.)

5. Babulal Son of Shri Ramani Shankar, aged about 49 years, Post Barber (Nai) Fourth Class Employee, Posted At "C" Company, IInd Battalion, RAC, Kota (Raj.)

6. Dinesh Kumar Son of Shri Ramani Shankar, aged about 45 years, Post Barber (Nai) Fourth Class Employee, posted at City Police Line, Kota (Raj.)

7. Suresh Kumar Son of Shri Ramani Shankar, aged about 43 years, Post Barber (Nai) Fourth Class Employee, posted at City Police Line, Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, P.H.Q. Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. Commandant II Battalion, RAC, Amar Niwas, Kota (Raj.) Superintendent of Police, Kota City, Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shashi Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Ms. Krishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC [2025:RJ-JP:19477] (2 of 6) [CW-18600/2019] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/05/2025

1. In the instant writ petition following prayer has been made by the petitioners: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Writ Petition, quashed and set aside the rejection order dated 15.10.2019 and: (i) by appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may directed to accept petitioners pay scale no.03 i.e. 800-1250 equal to cooks from the date of its entitlement i.e. from 16.07.1996 and pay the arrears with interest and punished the respondents from its deliberate action in the larger interest of justice. (ii) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (iii) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioners."

2. It has been submitted by the petitioners that in order to claim parity of pay scale, earlier also one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23285/2018 was filed by some of the petitioners. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the submission made by the learned counsel that the petitioners in that case were ready and willing to submit their representation and they would be satisfied in case such representation, if submitted, may be decided by the respondents by speaking order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in compliance of order dated 16.08.2019, the petitioners submitted representation dated 26.08.2019 with a request to grant the [2025:RJ-JP:19477] (3 of 6) [CW-18600/2019] petitioners, who are working as Barbers, same pay scale which is being granted to the Cooks in the same Department.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the representation filed by some of the petitioners has been dismissed by the respondent-Department vide order dated 15.10.2019 and for others vide order dated 14.10.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while rejecting the representation, the respondent-Department has not taken into consideration that post of Barber is also falling within the category of Class-IV employee i.e. in the same category in which post of Cook has been kept. Hence, there is no rationale behind granting lesser salary to Barbers than the salary which is being paid to the Cooks.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India mandates "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and in the instant case by granting two different pay scales to the employees of same category, the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination, which is apparent violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Rajasthan Sahayak Karmchari Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 17.04.1992 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1390/1985 as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in (2016) 7 SCR 350.

8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners in the writ petition [2025:RJ-JP:19477] (4 of 6) [CW-18600/2019] and has contended that different posts encadred in "Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999" (hereinafter as referred to be, "Class-IV Rules") cannot be put in the same category for the purpose of assigning same pay scale.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that under the Class-IV Rules so many posts have been defined and encadred but different pay scales have been provided by the Government on the basis of different nature of work, responsibilities and duties.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that by no stretch of imagination on the basis of nature of duties and work, Barbers can be set to be in the same category in Class-IV in which Cooks are falling.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that equality under law can be claimed only within the same category of Class and since in the instant case there is clear line of distinction between nature of duties and responsibilities of Barbers and Cooks, no discrimination can be alleged by the petitioners in case different pay scales have been prescribed for different posts.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that different pay scales have been shown in Revised Pay Scale Rules for the post of Barbers and Cooks, in case, the petitioners are aggrieved then they ought to have challenged the Rules, which they have not done, therefore, no relief whatsoever can be granted in the writ petition.

13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the record. [2025:RJ-JP:19477] (5 of 6) [CW-18600/2019]

14. It is an undisputed fact that in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, post of Barber and Cook have been shown separately, irrespective of the fact that service conditions of both the posts are governed by the same set of Rule. Even, by perusal of Class-IV Rules, it would reveal that the qualifications and experience required for the post of Barber and Cook are different.

15. It is also an admitted fact that nature of responsibilities and work carried out by both the posts are also altogether different. Hence, under these circumstances, for the purpose of claiming parity, no sufficient factual foundation has been laid before this Court by the petitioners.

16. It is also an admitted fact that discrimination can be alleged only in the case, where persons falling within the same category/class are being treated differently. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the Barbers and Cooks are discharging the same duties and responsibilities. Hence, petitioners cannot claim any parity of pay scales between the aforesaid two posts. Hence, the allegation of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not made out.

17. In the Judgment of Rajasthan Sahayak Karmchari Sangh (supra) the controversy was altogether different, where the Cooks working in Police Department and in RAC, rendering same duties and discharging same work were claiming parity in pay scale and under circumstances, directions were given to grant same pay scales to the Cooks of two different Departments. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is of no help of petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:19477] (6 of 6) [CW-18600/2019]

18. In the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the fact that only in such cases where duties and responsibilities of different employees are same, benefits of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" can be granted. In the instant case, where duties and responsibilities of posts of Barbers and Cooks are altogether different, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present set of facts.

19. It is also clear by pursuing the prayers made by the petitioners in the writ petition that provisions of revised Pay Scale Rules providing different pay scales for Barber and Cook has not been challenged by the petitioners. Under these circumstances, I do not find any force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits and substance.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

21. All pending application(s) also stands disposed of. DAKSH/165 (ANAND SHARMA),J