USMAN KARIM CHUDESARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this petition made prayer for the same scale of pay as was given to a carpenter working in Ahmedabad Litho Press of Rs.130 - 240 instead of Rs.125 - 200 with effect from 01.06.1967 and Rs.350 - 560 from 01.01.1973 and Rs.1200 - 2040 from 01.01.1986.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as carpenter by Office Order dtd.14.06.1962 in the pay scale of Rs.55-3-85 with usual allowances. The said pay scale was revised to Rs.125 - 200 with effect from 01.06.1967 as per the recommendations of Sarela Pay Commission. The petitioner has further submitted that Government Litho Press was started at Ahmedabad wherein a post of a carpenter was created and the carpenter at Ahmedabad was given the pay scale of Rs.130 - 240 i.e. more than what was fixed for the post of carpenter at Rajkot. The petitioner has further submitted that as per the recommendation of the Desai Pay Commission under the Pay Revision Rules of 1975, the pay scales were revised and the post of carpenter at Rajkot was given the pay scale of Rs.260 350 whereas the carpenter at Ahmedabad was fixed at Rs.350 560. It was further stated by the petitioner that carpenters working not only at Ahmedabad Press but carpenters working in all other offices, viz. Director, Animal Husbandary, Director, Geology & Mining were given the pay scale of Rs.350 - 560. The petitioner further submitted that the Desai Pay Commission was appointed only with a view to remove the anomaly which existed in different pay scales. However, anomaly in the petitioner's pay scale was not removed even after the recommendations of the Desai Pay Commission. Hence, the petitioner has made representation on 1st March, 1983 and 29th October, 1985. However, the petitioner has not received any reply from the respondent authorities. Despite various representations made by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner was not redressed by the respondent authorities and the petitioner was, therefore, constrained to file the present petition before this Court.

(3.) The petition was admitted by this Court on 18.09.1990 and affidavit-in-reply was filed by the respondent authorities on 01.12.2000. The petition was opposed on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the same pay scale as given to the carpenter working in the Photo Litho Press, Ahmedabad. It was further submitted that though the petitioner was given appointment as carpenter with effect from 01.01.1962, the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions and was not entitled for the appointment as carpenter as per the recruitment rules of carpenter framed by the Government which are indicated in Serial No.340 of the Printing and Stationery Manual Vol-II (Page No.284). It was further submitted that the petitioner was not holding the post of junior carpenter but as per the requirement of rule 340 of the manual, he was entitled for the post of carpenter by promotion only and since he did not fulfil the same criteria, there was no question of considering his appointment as carpenter. It was further submitted that the junior carpenter's appointment to the post shall be made by direct recruitment and shall be between 18 and 25 years age. Preference shall be given to those who have obtained the certificate of Craftsman Training Course in Carpentry. The other qualifications which are required are that the candidate studied upto V with English or IX Secondary School and ability to manufacture and repair furniture to mount rubber stamps and prepare boxes for packing. It was further submitted that in order to have smooth working of press of printing and stationery it should recruit and promote the persons who satisfy the prescribed education qualification. It was further submitted that the petitioner was not competent to discharge his duties in the capacity of carpenter till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.03.1997 as he was not holding the experience of carpenter as required by rules and hence, there was no question of any anomaly in the pay scale. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the carpenter working at Photo Litho Press, Ahmedabad were not holding the equivalent qualification and experience and both were working in different section and discharging their different duties. The duties of the carpenter at Photo Litho Press, Ahmedabad is on its speciality printing work in comparison with the carpenter of Government press, Rajkot. On the basis of all these submissions, it was urged that there was no injustice to the petitioner in his pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work.