SANTOSH VIJAY SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Devendra Swaroop for petitioner and learned standing counsel.

(2.) The petitioner is working as a Workshop Instructor in the Instrumentation Department of I.E.R.T., Allahabad. He was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on 18.12.1980 and was given regular appointment as Workshop Instructor in the Electrical Faculty on 12.1.1983. He was selected as Instructor (I.C.) in the Instrumentation and Control Department on 11.3.1983 and was required to teach Electronics Measurement (Lab.) and Electronics Instrumentation (Lab.). The petitioner holds a diploma in Electronics from U. P. Technical Board in 1977.

(3.) The Government order dated 31.12.1987 changed the designation of Instructors possessing a diploma in Engineering as Assistant Lecturer in the Polytechnics. The petitioner claims that he was also entitled to have his designation as Assistant Lecturer, and that he has been making representation since 1992 for this purpose. All the Assistant Lecturers Engineering fall in the same class at Sl. No. 9 of, the Government order dated 2.6.1992 and Workshop Instructors were placed in a separate class at item No. 9A with the same pay scale, i.e.. 1400-2600. By Government order dated 3.6.1992 the pay scale of Assistant Lecturers (Engineering) at Sl. No. 9A of the Government order dated 2.6.1992 were given a revised pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900. From this point of time, the two categories of employees which were similar and were given complete equality in pay scale and other benefits were treated differently and that the 'Assistant Lecturers' (Engineering) placed at Sl. No. 9A was given a favored treatment in a higher pay scale. Their essential qualification and method of recruitment was the same. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to confer the designation of 'Assistant Lecturer', to the petitioner to give same revised pay scale effective from 1.1.1986, which was subsequently revised on 3.6.1992 and to quash the order dated 3.11.2001 and 9.1.2002 by which the petitioner's representations were rejected.