RAM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were working on the post of Drawing Instructor in different disciplines of Engineering like civil, mechanical etc. having been appointed on 12.9.1963, 19.9.1967 and 1.7.1966 respectively have already retired in June, 1996, 2002 and 2006 respectively. At the time of appointment they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 150-300 and posted at Gandhi Polytechnic, Muzaffarnagar. The appointment letters were issued by the Principal, Gandhi Polytechnic, Muzaffarnagar after having approval of the Managing Committee of Gandhi Polytechnic, Muzaffarnagar. At the time of joining of service by the petitioners, the Engineering Instructors and Engineering Drawing Instructors, both were getting the same pay scale. The qualifications for the same were Diploma in Engineering (three years course with one year experience) or Draftsman Course with two years duration plus two years Draftsman experience respectively. It is said that the pay scales of the Instructors were revised in 1992 pursuant to the Equivalence Committee (Samta Samiti) report of 1989 and the Engineering Instructors were placed in the scale of Rs. 1400-2400 and thereafter Rs. 1600- 2900 vide Government Orders dated 2.6.1992 and 3.6.1992 respectively placing them at par with the Assistant Lecturer (Engineering) but the said scale was not made applicable to the Drawing Instructors and Workshop Instructors hence, they raised a demand for the same. It is alleged that recommendation was made to this effect by the Director, Technical Education, U.P. vide letter dated 8.1.1993. By order dated 18.02.1995 the Government communicated its decision for giving the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 to Drawing Instructors in Civil and Mechanical Engineering instead of 1400-2400. The Senior Drawing Instructors who were in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and Senior Arts Instructors (Civil/Mechanical) who were in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 were directed to be placed in a common cadre in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The Workshop Instructors were also provided the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 instead of 1400-2400. The Instructors and Junior Lecturers were allowed a personal promotion scale of Rs. 2200-4000 vide Government Order dated 27.1.1998 w.e.f. 14.7.1997, i.e., the date on which U.P. Technical Education Rules, 1996 were promulgated or thereafter but it was admissible only to the extent of 25% of posts and substantively appointed non-technical category Instructors and Junior Lecturers.

(2.) The petitioners who were working as Senior Drawing Instructors at that time were given the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 but the same was stopped on 10.08.2001. Before grant of the said scale the petitioners had already filed Writ Petition No. 40859 of 1994 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 as was paid to Engineering Instructors and it is during the pendency of the said writ petition the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 was given to the petitioners. The above writ petition was disposed of on 26.9.2005 directing the respondent No. 1, State of U.P. to consider and decide petitioners' representation for higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on due date, i.e., the date on which the Engineering Instructors were provided the said scale. It is pursuant to this judgement of the Court, the respondents have passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of petitioners for the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on the post of Arts Instructors. It is further said that earlier the Workshop Instructors claiming the higher scale of Rs. 850-1720 in accordance with the Government Order dated 3.6.1999 filed Writ Petition No 9413(SS) of 1989, (Surendra Prakash Tripati and another v. State of U.P. and others. Before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was allowed vide judgement dated 25.04.1991 and those petitioners were allowed scale of Rs. 850-1720. Relying on the above judgement another Writ Petition No. 1197 (SS) of 1992 (Shyam Prakash Saxena and others v. State of U. P. and others) was decided by Lucknow Bench on 20.2.1992 and pursuant to the above judgement the said petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 850-1720 and later on in the revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1992 but the petitioners in the present writ petition have been denied the same benefits.

(3.) The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit stating that pursuant to the decision taken by State Government for providing parity in the matter of pay scale to State Government employees with Central Government employees on the basis of post to post basis, the matter was considered by the Equivalence Committee (Samta Samiti) constituted in 1988. it was found that the Arts Instructors (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) getting the scale of Rs. 1400-2400 and claiming parity with the similar post in Delhi Administration getting the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 were not at par since the structure of post in Delhi Administration was different. Therefore, the Equivalence Committee recommended the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 which was accepted by the State Government and the decision was communicated to the authority concerned vide letter dated 18.02.1995. No justification was found for giving the scale applicable to Assistant Lecturers to the Drawing Instructors. The post of Assistant Lecturers and Drawing Instructors are not of the same cadre and the eligibility criteria as well as selection process was also different. It is said that the Engineering Instructors are different from the Drawing Instructors inasmuch as the Engineering Instructors are required to impart instructions in various subjects of concerned trade and the practical works are carried on in the related laboratories while Drawing Instructors render knowledge of the subjects related to drawing in the concerned trade only. The qualification for the two cadres is also different. The claim of the petitioners for parity with reference to the G.B. Pant Polytechnic, U.P. Lucknow was denied on the ground that it is being run by the Social Welfare Department of U.P. and is not regulated and controlled by Director, Technical Education, U.P. The service conditions of the said institution under the Social Welfare Department are totally different.