RANJEET SINGH RAWAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand. Petitioner was appointed on daily wages as a Drier Machine Operator on 10.10.1982 in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam. His services were regularized in the year 1987. Realising that he was getting lower pay than most of his colleagues, he represented the matter. In the 66th Board of Directors Meeting, held on 20.09.1996, the issue was discussed and the Board agreed to the demand for increasing the pay scale from Rs. 775-1067/- to Rs. 950-1500/- with a restriction that the Government should also ratify the decision. Reminders were sent to the Government. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1395 of 2006 before this Court. This Court, vide judgment dated 24.06.2007, directed the Government to take a decision on the letter dated 23.11.1996 sent by the Managing Director of the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam to the Secretary of the Uttarakhand Vikas Vibhag. On the direction of the Court, the Managing Director referred the matter to the Government. The reference was considered by the Government and, on the direction of the Government, the Managing Director rejected the matter of enhancement of pay scale. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 94 of 2008 before this Court, which was rejected on the ground of alternative remedy and the Review Petition was also rejected vide order dated 14.10.2008. It is, thereafter, that the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The same came to be dismissed by Annexure 11 order and the petitioner is challenging the same in this writ petition. We notice from the order that the main ground taken by the petitioner was that a Drier Machine Operator can be equated with other machine operators like Clean Operator on the principle of "equal work equal pay". We notice that the following is the reasoning in the decision of the Tribunal:

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at the time when the petitioner was appointed, the educational qualification was not there. He would further submit that the duties and functions of the Drier Machine Operator and the Clean Operator are, more or less, the same and, therefore, there is no justification for the Tribunal not to interfere with the impugned order.