STATE OF U.P. Vs. RAM NARAYAN SRIVSTVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State Government has filed this bunch of special appeals challenging the judgment and order of learned single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein.

(2.) By the writ petitions filed between the year 1997 to 2006, the respondents claimed that they were working in various capacity as Workman Agent or Workmen and Technicians in State Public Works Department and sought parity with the similar cadres of the Central Public Works Department by seeking certain increments in their pay scales. The prayers in the writ petitions were to give equal pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 with effect from 1.1.1986 and thereafter Rs. 4000-6000.00 with effect from 1.1.1996. Certain other orders have been challenged by some persons claiming that their pay scales had been wrongly reduced. The claim is on the basis that in the report of Fourth Pay Commission given in the year 1986, another cadre of Work Supervisor and Junior Engineers working in the Central Public Works Department were granted those scales. The petitioners claimed that they were putting in same work as was being put in by the concerned cadre in Central Public Works Department. Strong reliance was placed upon letters dated 22.2.1990 and 4.12.1993 of the Chief Engineer of State Public works Department wherein he had recommended parity in pay scale to be given with the cadre of Central Public Works Department. Further reliance is placed on the report of Equivalence Committee. Though in the said report a better pay scale is provided but the same is not equivalent to the cadre of Central Public Works Department.

(3.) Submission on behalf of the State Government is that there is no parity between the work conducted by the respondents with those working in cadre of Central Public Works Department. State has also claimed that respondents have miserably failed to prove on record that they are conducting same work as was being conducted by persons in Central Public Works Department. Submission of State further is that the letters of the Chief Engineer, on the basis of which the impugned order been passed, nowhere compares the working of the claimants with that of the Central Public Works Department and further the said letters are only recommendations of the Chief Engineer which are not binding on the State Government. State further claims that for granting equal pay scales, necessary ingredients are: uniformity of recruitment process, same qualification and same nature of work. It strongly denies any parity and further denies that the respondents could prove on record that any such parity exists. The State Government further claims that it is for the State Government alone to look into the issue of parity and for the said purpose, it had appointed an Expert Body namely Equivalence Committee, which also did not recommend parity in pay scale. Hence learned Single Judge has wrongly issued mandamus granting parity by the impugned order. The State has also taken the ground of limitation as it submits that writ petitions have been filed on the basis of Fourth Pay Commission while thereafter two more Pay Commissions have given their reports and thus, petitions have been filed after about 8 years of arising of cause of action.