MRS. MANJU SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Y.S. Lohit, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Mehrotra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

(2.) Uttar Pradesh Technical Education Department Non-Gazetted Technical Service Rules, 1988 were notified on 19.7.1988. In the Rules, the pay scale attached to the Studio Assistant is Rs. 550-940. On 5.10.1989, the Secretary, Technical Education sent a letter to the Principal of Government Girls Polytechnic, Lucknow which reveals that the Diploma in Architecture has been treated as equivalent in any other branch of Engineering. Thereafter, on 23.5.1992, the pay scale of Instructors, which were re-designated as Assistant Lecturers, i.e. Rs. 1400-2300 was modified as Rs. 1640-2900. When the said pay scale has not been provided to the petitioner, she preferred representations on 14.7.1997 and 12.11.1997. On 21.5.1998, High Power Committee gave its specific finding that the nature of work of the post of Studio Assistant is similar to that of Assistant Lecturers. On 24.6.1998, the Director, Technical Education sent a letter to the Government mentioning that the pay scale and designation of the Assistant Lecturer was recommended for the Studio Assistant also. Despite the recommendations made by the High Power Committee and Director, the petitioner has not been provided the pay scale. Feeling aggrieved, she preferred a claim petition. The said claim petition was decided by means of the judgment and order dated 24.3.2003. The operative portion of the judgment is as under:

(3.) The order passed by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the State, therefore, it attains finality. In compliance of the judgment dated 24.3.2002, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the order dated 8.7.2003, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner's representation has not been considered in light of the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed.