JITENDRA MOHAL SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey for the respondents 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) This writ petition has questioned the correctness of the decision of the State Government dated 22nd Nov., 2011 with regard to recommendations of the Equivalence Committee for Pay Committee (2008) in relation to the claim of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Social Welfare). The petitioners prayed that a mandamus should also be issued directing the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Committee that have been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition vis-a-vis the aforesaid post in the Social Welfare Department where a recommendation has been made to treat the petitioner in the pay-scale of 5000-8000 and grant them the Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300 to 34800 and Grade pay of Rs.4200.

(3.) The petitioners had made a representation but the contention is that the said representation has been completely overlooked and the recommendations made by the Pay Committee have not been taken into consideration resulting in the passing of the impugned order dated 22nd Nov., 2011, Annexure-2 to the writ petition which does not contain any reason for rejecting the said contention of the petitioner or even any reason for not accepting the recommendations of the Pay Committee.