RAJESH SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) AS noted, this is a writ petition of 2001 and finally, the matter is being heard, in the year 2015, by us.

(3.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner was appointed as a Programmer in the University of Roorkee, Computer Centre by Annexure -2 dated 19.11.1985. By Annexure -3 dated 30.01.1990, the University Grants Commission formulated guidelines in respect of staffing pattern and scales of pay, and it recommended that the System Programmer, Level -C for system over 50 lacs be given salary in the pay -scale of lecturers grade. The University adopted the UGC recommendation and requested through letter dated 17.03.1992 (Annexure -4) for grant of pay -scale to the post of Professor to the Head of the Computer Centre and also grant the pay -scale of Reader to the System Manager. The post of System Programmer, occupied by the petitioner, was excluded. It is complained that this approach of the University of Roorkee was wholly discriminatory. By Annexure -5 Government Order (State of U.P. as the State of Uttarakhand was born only on 09.11.2000), the State Government granted pay -scale of Professor to the Head of the Computer Centre with effect from 17.01.1981. It is stated that the University appointed a Committee and its recommendations are produced as Annexure -6, which recommendations are that the Programmer should be paid the payscale of Lecturer, which is Rs. 3000 -5000, which is what is sought as the first prayer in the writ petition. Another Committee was constituted, which also made the same recommendation. Ultimately, it is the case of the petitioner that an office memorandum was issued providing that the Vice Chancellor has approved the pay -scale of Rs. 3000 -5000 to the Programmer vide Annexure -8. Petitioner also gave his consent by Annexure -9 communication dated 04.08.1995, but the same scale was not paid. It is alleged in Paragraph 17 that the petitioner made several requests to the University. By Annexure -10 dated 29.03.1996, the University wrote to the State Government for payment of salary in the pay -scale of Rs. 3000 -5000 in regard to the Programmers. There are further communications, it is mentioned in Paragraph 19, on similar line, but the State Government has been sleeping over the matter. The University has again written Annexure -11 letter to the Governor. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know that the University has appointed another Committee with Professor A.K Pant as its Chairman to consider the case of pay anomaly in regard to the System Manager and the Programmer in Computer Centre. The post of Programmer is a post falling within Category 'A' of Staff and is an academic post. There is reference to a discrimination alleged in Paragraphs 24 and 25. It is stated that the University cannot discriminate in the matter. The University of Roorkee was conferred the status of Indian Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') vide Ordinance No. 6 of 2001 published on 21st September, 2001. A Mapping Committee was constituted. The case of the petitioner is that the mapping should have been made of the petitioner on the post of Manager / Senior System Manager in the pay -scale of Rs. 4500 -6300 now revised to Rs. 16400 -20000. But, it is stated that the petitioner was mapped in the designation of Junior Programmer/ System Operator and he is being paid salary in the scale of Rs. 8000 -13500. The petitioner was enjoying the designation of Programmer prior to IIT. There is no uniform policy in the matter of mapping, it is alleged. It is on this basis that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the prayers, which we have already extracted above. A short counter affidavit was filed by State of Uttarakhand. Therein, there is reference to an interim order dated 20.10.2001, which was passed by this Court in this writ petition, wherein the Government was asked to get instructions as to whether any decision has been taken and also in the meantime, the State was directed to take a decision. It is pointed out that after conversion into an Indian Institute of Technology, the State Government, it is stated, could not take a decision in the matter as it had no authority to take a decision in this regard. It would appear that the State of Uttarakhand referred to the petitioner's Application and wrote to the Institute for necessary action with the request to report back regarding the action taken. It is stated that the Institute has come under the administrative control of the Central Government and, therefore, to decide any claim regarding pay -scale of a personnel was beyond the competence of the State Government and the Institute was asked to request the Government of India for further action. The State of Uttarakhand would seek to point out that it is for the existing State of U.P. to take a decision in the matter as before the petitioner's case could be examined, the University of Roorkee was converted into IIT. Initially, a counter affidavit was filed by the Institute, wherein it is, inter alia, stated as follows: