RAJKIYA AUDHOGIK PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN ARAJPATRIT KARMCHARI Vs. STATE OF U P THROUGH CHIEF SECY LKO & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Omkar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sabhajeet Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents.

(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner, a registered Association of the employees of the Government Technical Training Centre run by the Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P., has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) The case set forth by the petitioner is that the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, sent a proposal to the Member Secretary, Pay Committee, Uttar Pradesh on 02.04.1998 that as the technical and educational qualifications, mode of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the employees in the department namely Senior Instructors, Junior Instructors and other technical employees working in the Government Technical Training Centres are one and the same as the employees working on the same post in Industrial Training Institute (for short, 'ITI') run by the Labour Department, as such, it was requested that the Pay Committee should take a decision to revise the pay scale of such employees with effect from 01.01.1996 at par with the employees working against the same post in the ITI run by the Labour Department. A copy of the letter dated 02.04.1998 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. After receiving the said letter, the Bajaj Committee of the 5th Pay Commission considered the entire position of the employees of the Social Welfare Department with that of Labour Department and made a recommendation for such employees for being paid salary equivalent to the employees of the same post working in the ITI after the organizational structure of the posts of Foreman, Supervisor, Senior and Junior Instructors and the mode of recruitment and qualification was made the same as that of the same set of employees of the Labour Department. On the said recommendation of the Bajaj Committee, the Committee of the Chief Secretary was of the view that the qualification and selection process of the employees of the Government Technical Training Centres run by the Social Welfare Department are different from those of the Labour Department and consequently, the pay scale and organizational structure for said posts be maintained . The said recommendation finds place in the report, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved against not being given the pay scale at par with the employees of ITI run by the Labour Department, the members of the petitioner Association submitted a representation on 19.07.2005 for being given the benefit of the Bajaj Committee but to no avail. It is also alleged that the Director of Social Welfare Department, U.P., sent a letter dated 27.09.2006, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, to the Deputy Secretary of the State Government dealing with the Social Welfare Department, recommending that the structure of the employees working in the Social Welfare Department should be modified so as to bring it at par with the Labour Department. However, no action was taken by the Government in this regard. Being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner Association preferred a Writ Petition No.5873 (MS) of 2008 praying for a mandamus to the respondents to pay equal salary to the employees of the petitioner Association as that of employees working on the same post in the ITI run by the Labour Department. This Court vide interim order dated 19.09.2009 directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner Association. Subsequent thereto, an order dated 06.02009 was passed by the State Government, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition placing reliance on which it is alleged that the Government had recognized the demand being raised by the petitioner Association of giving the same pay scale yet it was also contended that as the organizational structure of both the departments viz Social Welfare Department and Labour Department is different as such no decision at that stage was possible as a Pay Committee was working pertaining to re-examination and removal of anomalies of pay and reorganization of the cadre.