PERSONAL ASSISTANTS BROTHERHOOD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the matter was heard at some length, this Court passed an order dated 28.4.2011 summarising the controversy in hand and asked for certain clarifications from the Chief Secretary of the State. The order is quoted below:

(2.) From the aforesaid it is clear that the Chief Secretary was asked to file an affidavit justifying the non-payment of salary to the Petitioners at par with Personal Assistants working in the establishment of this High Court with effect from the date of the institution of the writ proceedings. The Court found that such parity in fact has been provided w.e.f. 21.6.2007. A pointed query was made as to what has happened between the date of filing of the writ petition and 21.6.2007 on the basis whereof such parity could be refused from the date as has been prayed in this petition.

(3.) Today an affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary and it has been stated that in respect of all the three issues so framed i.e. a, b and c, there has been no change between 16.12.1996 to 21.6.2007. Except for reiterating what has been stated earlier, no fresh material has been brought on record which can lead to a conclusion that the State is justified in not granting the parity in the pay scale from the date the writ petition was filed i.e. 16.12.1996 as has been done in the case of Private Secretaries Brotherhood and Ors. v. The State of U.P. & The Advocate General, U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1996).