A VASUDEVAIAH Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Welder) in the 2nd respondent - Institute as per the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 27-3-1983 and he joined duty on the next day i.e., 28-3-1983 to discharge the duties of an Instructor in the trade of 'Welder'. His services were regularised with effect from 28-3-1983 and later, his probation was also declared with effect from 27-3-1985. The 2nd respondent - Institute was established in the year 1983 itself. It runs under the control of the 1st respondent - Devasthanams. The service conditions of the employees of the Institute are governed by the Rules called - Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989, which were published in G.O.Ms.No.1060, Revenue (Endowments -1) Department dated 24-10-1989. Under Rule 4, the rules issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the employees of the State Government and other orders issued from time to time by the Government insofar as they relate to Pay and Allowances, are applicable to the employees of the respondents insofar as they are not inconsistent with the said Rules.

(2.) In the beginning, the Institute used to train handicapped students insome vocational trades like Welder, Fitter, Turner, Commercial Practice, Stationery, Cane Weaving, Basket Making, Tailoring etc., but no certificates were issued to such trained students. Thereafter, having realised that training without issuing any certificate to the candidate would not serve any useful purpose to the candidate because no financial institution would come forward to render any assistance to such student who does not possess any valid certificate issued by any competent authority, the Institute applied for grant of affiliation to the Institute and the Director General of Employment and Training (DGET), the competent authority, granted provisional affiliation to the Institute on 1-12-1984. Thereafter, permanent affiliation was also granted in respect of the Engineering trades - Welder, Fitter and Turner, with effect from 14-8-1987. From then onwards, training is being given to the candidates in three engineering trades as per the syllabus prescribed by the Director General of Employment and Training. It is submitted that for the trade of Welder, the syllabus prescribed in the Institute as well as the syllabus in the Government Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs), which are run under the control of DGET, are one and the same. Similarly, when coming to the academic qualifications of the Instructors it is submitted that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Craft Instructor in the Government ITIs, who discharges similar duties as those of the Instructor in the 2nd respondent -Institute, and the qualifications prescribed for the post of Instructor (Welder) are one and the same. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the post of Instructor (Welder) in the 2nd respondent - Institute is comparable to the post of Junior Craft Instructor (Welder) in the Government ITIs, and that the scale of pay fixed for the post of Junior Craft Instructor is applicable to the post of Instructor (Welder) in the Institute. The grievance of the petitioner is that the pay scale fixed for the post of Instructor (Welder) is lesser than the pay scale attached to the post of Junior Craft Instructor. The pay scales fixed for the two posts in P.R.C., 1986 are given hereunder: Name of the Post Scale of Pay fixed in P.R.C 1986 Scale of Pay fixed in the pre-revised scales of P.R.C. 1986 Instructor (Welder) Rs. 1010-1800. Rs. 530-850 Junior Craft Instructor Rs. 1100-2050. Rs. 575-950. The petitioner brought the above said anomaly in pay scale to the notice of the respondents and requested them, by way of number of representations, to revise his pay scale on par with the Pay Scale of the post of Junior Craft Instructor (Welder) in the Government ITIs. When the respondents failed to respond to his requests, he approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, praying for a direction to the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner on par with the pay scale attached to the post of Jr. Craft Instructor from the date of his appointment i.e., 28-3-1983 and for other consequential benefits.

(3.) The respondents filed a counter in the year 1994 vaguely denying theclaim of the petitioner. They denied the contention of the petitioner that the post of Instructor (Welder) is comparable to the post of Junior Craft Instructor in Government ITIs. It is the contention of the respondents that there cannot be any equation between the two posts as there is enormous difference in the volume of work and the strength of candidates in both the institutions.