ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, two in number have challenged the order of the Chief General Manager (T & A) rejecting their representations to designate them as Deputy Manager and allow them the revised scale of pay as allowed to the other contemporaries in service with effect from the date of such persons have been given, the benefit.

(2.) THE short fact of the case is that petitioner No. 1 Ashok Kumar Mishra was first appointed as Trainee Junior Engineer on consolidated salary of Rs. 750/ - per month and joined in the Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter called 'I.D.C.O.') on 24.11.1986. He was regularised in the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) at a starting pay of Rs. 565/ - per month in the scale of pay Rs. 490 -840/ - with effect from 1.1:1987. Petitioner No. 2 Dipak Ranjan Tripathy joined the I.D.C.O. on 10.7.1987 as Assistant Manager (Civil) on probation on a consolidated salary Rs. 750/ - per month. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 Sri Mishra was designated as Assistant Manager (Civil) and allowed the scale of pay of Rs. 1350 -2975/ -with effect from 24.11.1987 in letter dated 22.12.1987, copy whereof is Annexure -D to the counter. Sri D. K. Tripathy, petitioner No. 2 was designated as Assistant Manger (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 -2975/ - with effect from 15.4.1988 by letter dated 21.4.1988, copy of which is Annexure -E. According to the petitioner No. 2, he was given appointment on probation as Assistant Manager (Civil) at a time when there was no such post but only the post of Assistant Manager (Technical) was available. He being a Graduate Engineer, it is claimed that he ought to have been appointed as Assistant Manager (Technical). However, both the petitioners were subsequently designated as Assistant Manager (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 -2975/ -, which according to them was not existing prior to and after the 18th meeting of the Board of Directors. The promotions were to be given according to the 9th and 10th Board meetings on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, Constituted by the order of the Chairman or Managing Director of the Corporation but the same was not done. The petitioners assert that they could not be placed in the category of Junior Engineer (Selection Grade) in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 -2975/ -, since it was meant for Junior Engineers having Diploma qualification, with five years experience. The petitioners allege that though unified scale of pay and redesignated post of Graduate Engineers were introduced in the 18th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the I.D.C.O. on 2.6.1987 and the petitioners had joined the service with effect from 1.1.1987 and 10.7.1987, they have been discriminated against other such Engineers appointed prior to them in 1985 -86. Petitioner's representation to the authorities having been rejected, they have approached this Court for relief.

(3.) IN view of the pleadings of the parties and the materials placed on record, it is clear that the petitioners were not continuing in a post carrying a pre -revised pay scale of Rs. 750 -1150/ - as on or before 2.6.1987, the date on which the Board of Directors of I.D.C.O. took the decision to create the intermediary post of Deputy Manager. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they being Graduate Engineers and Graduate Engineers holding the scale of pay of Rs. 750 -1150/ - having been designated as Deputy Manager, they should have been given the same benefit, is misconceived in law. The question of discrimination arises only where equals are treated unequally without any justifiable cause. Admittedly, the Graduate Engineers, who have been re -designated as Deputy Manager in terms of the Board's Resolution were appointed prior to the petitioners were enjoying a scale of Rs. 750 -1150/ - higher to that of the petitioners. The petitioners being juniors to such persons and holding a post with lesser salary cannot laim equality with those persons. It is not a case where the petitioners were equally situated with their contemporaries as claimed, having the same qualification, experienced scale of pay and seniority, but were denied the benefits of the Resolution and as such, the expectation of the petitioners cannot be legitimate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Only because, the petitioners were Graduate Engineers and some such Graduate Engineers were allowed the benefit of re -designation as Deputy Manager earlier, the petitioners would not ipso facto become eligible or entitled to have the same benefit or privilege. Person similarly situated can only claim equality and not otherwise. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. P.C. Naik, J.