U P LABORATORY TECHNICIAN S ASSOCIATION LUCKNOW Vs. SUMITA KANDPAL PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE U P LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. D. Shahi, J. This contempt peti tion has been filed by U. P. Laboratory Tech nicians Association through the General Secretary and others against Smt. Sumita Kandpal, Principal Secretary, Medical, Heath and Family Welfare, U. P. Lucknow and Dr. P. D. P. Mathuf, Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow, to take action against them for wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 3-2-1993 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8345 of 1989.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. THEre is an association of Laboratory Technicians and Senior Laboratory Technicians working under the Director General, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh. THEre was some anamoly in the pay scale of Laboratory Technicians and Senior Laboratory Technicians and that of a Laboratory Assistants working under the same department. Previously, the Laboratory Assistants were sanctioned lower pay scale than the present petitioners. Subsequently, they were sanctioned higher pay scale as a result of which the present petitioners filed a writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 8345 of 1989. THE said petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 3-2-1993. A bare reading of the judgment that there were two direc tions. Firstly, the Laboratory Technicians will get the same pay scale as that of Laboratory Assistants within two months and secondly the Senior Laboratory Tech nicians should make a representation for higher pay scale giving details of the nature of duties they are performing and how these duties are more arduous than those of Laboratory Assistants. If such repre sentation is made within a month, the same shall be decided within two months there after by a reasoned order.

(3.) WHAT this Court desired was that the Senior Laboratory Technicians should make a representation for higher pay scale indicating therein the nature of duties they were performing and also how their duties were more arduous than that of the Laboratory Assistants. In other words, the position of the Senior Laboratory Assis tants was to be compared with the position of the Laboratory Assistants, but the decision shows that the respondent No. 1 in a hot haste manner compared the pay scale of Senior Laboratory Technicians with that of the Laboratory Assistants. The respon dent No. 1 did not advert to the duties as signed to the Senior Laboratory Tech nicians and the Laboratory Assistants and whether. The duties of the Senior Laboratory Technicians are more arduous than that of the Laboratory Assistants and by a cryptic order rejected the repre sentation of the petitioners. In my view, the order passed by respondent No. 1 is not in conformity with the direction issued by this Court. It was imperative for respondent No. 1 to have considered the representation of the petitioners in the light of the directions issued by this Court. It appears that in order to show compliance of the order of this Court, the representation was rejected. The action of respondent No. 1 is wholly unbe coming and in not befitting to the status and the rank of the Principal Secretary. The Principal Secretary is the father, mother and guardian of the employees and officers of the entire Health Department and is sup posed to redress their genuine grievances. In view of what has been enumerated above, it is manifest that the order of this Court has not at all been complied with.