S A SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri J. K. Shina, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for opposite parties.

(2.) Through the present writ petition, petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1, i.e., State Government to grant approval to the petitioner's employers, i.e., U. P. Bridge Corporation Limited, opposite party No. 2 in respect of fixation of the pay scales Rs. 1,230-2,080 and after ten years service Rs. 1,400-2,300 to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1986 in the light of recommendation made by the opposite party No. 2 through its duly constituted committee in its meeting held on 27.5.1991 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioners have further prayed for revision of their pay scale and take necessary steps in short expeditious disposal of the pending matter of pay fixation.

(3.) Counter-affidavits have been filed by the opposite parties putting forth their versions. As exhibited in the counter-affidavits, the claim of some of the petitioners has been admitted by the opposite parties. The Managing Director vide a letter dated 13.6.1991, has recommended the case of the petitioners to the State Government for taking necessary action in the matter. However, it has been indicated in the counter-affidavit that some of the petitioners have not completed ten years of services and as such they cannot claim revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The persons appointed after 1986 were not entitled for the revised salary and a joint writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. The opposite parties has further stated that the U. P. State Bride Corporation Limited has already sent its recommendation to the State Government and the Bureau of Public Enterprises for its approval. Counter- affidavit filed by opposite party No. 1 reveals that the State Government has examined the proposal of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited and the same was forwarded to Bureau of Public Enterprises, a department of State Government having the controlling power on such corporations for its opinion/concurrence in respect of the said proposal on 29.4.1993. The Bureau of Public Enterprises without considering the proposal, returned the same to the State Government saying that the proposal was belated and the same was beyond the prescribed period. Such consideration and opinion by the said Bureau was of the view that administrative department itself had to examine the matter. In the counter-affidavit, it further reveals that the administrative department, i.e., opposite party No. 1 has made correspondences with the employers, i.e., U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited from time to time and due to non-co-operation the matter was dropped. It appears from the counter-affidavit that U. P. State Bridge Corporation Limited, the State Government and the Bureau of Public Enterprises have tried to shift the burden on each other. Lastly, the State Government has found the Board of Directors of the Corporation responsible for not taking any decision in respect of the discrepancy and anomalies in the pay scale of the petitioners. It is interesting to note that administrative department, i.e., the State Government and the U. P. State Bridge Corporation Limited have appreciated the difficulties faced by the petitioners. It has not been denied that the petitioners were entitled for revised pay scale, proper pay fixation and other benefits. It is the duty of the employers to take proper care of its employees and make assure that the petitioners are getting their dues which is being admissible to other employees of the other State Corporations. Several other pleas of convenience have been taken in the counter-affidavit.