GURINDER SINGH SETHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18 March 2015 whereby the Pay Commission had denied to grant equal pay scale to the Director Printing and Stationery of the State Government as is being paid to the Director Printing Urban Department of the Central Government.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was duly confirmed on the post of Director Printing and Stationary w.e.f. 05.10.1995 and he worked as such till he attained the age of superannuation on 31 July 2010. It has been contended that in the year 1986 the pay scale of Director Printing and Stationery of the State of U.P. was Rs. 4100-5300 , but later on the State Government took a decision to provide parity of pay scale available to the post of Director Printing in the Government of India. Accordingly the petitioner pay grade was upgraded to Rs. 4500-5700 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. It is put forth that the Central Government had further revised the pay scale of Director Printing in the Government of India in the year 1999 to the scale of Rs. 16400-450-20000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 but the said pay scale was not provided to the post of Director Printing and Stationery of the State Government. The petitioner had also submitted several representations for providing the benefit of pay scale admissible to the post of Director Printing Central Government but all in vain. The petitioner had felt mental torture and suffered losses, therefore, he has come forward to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Per-Contra learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there were so many posts under the State Government which were equivalent to the post of Central Government, as such in view of comparative study of the posts an Equivalence Committee was constituted to submit its report. Equivalence Committee had observed that on the basis of similarity in nomenclature, the posts may not be declared equivalent, rather there should be similarity in requisite educational/ technical qualification for recruitment, source of recruitment, mode of selection responsibility and working area. He further contended that the post of Director Printing and Stationery of the State Government was not found to be equivalent to the post of Director Printing under the Central Government, hence no recommendation with regard to the revision of the pay was made by the Equivalence Committee.