MARKANDEY SINGH Vs. REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners' representation (Annexure-8) preferred on account of liberty granted by this Court in C.W.J.C. 2716 of 2000(R) (Annexure-1) has been rejected by the impugned order dated 8.8.2001 by the respondent-Principal, Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, where under the claim of the petitioners for equivalence of scale to that of Mechanic Grade-'A' w.e.f. 1.4.1986 has been denied. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an Engine Driver and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Boiler Attendant in the scale of 200-300 on 8.7.1972.

(2.) It appears that the petitioners came before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 2716 of 2000(R) with the grievance that petitioners should be placed in the scale of 1400-2600 at par with the senior stenographer w.e.f. the year 1986 as the senior stenographer had been at the pay scale of 168-320 earlier lower than the petitioners in the year 1972. The Patna High Court in its judgment dated 29.8.2000 was not impressed with the petitioners' argument and on the request of the petitioners, the writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to them to approach the Principal, Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur with their representation for consideration of their grievances which was directed to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

(3.) In the representation preferred, thereafter, petitioners claimed for equivalence of scale at par with those employees i.e. mechanics in Grade 'A'. The respondent-Principal, R.I.T, Jamshedpur rejected the representation of the petitioners by a reasoned order inter-alia holding that the persons like the petitioners, as per the revision, had been in the scale of pay of 340-490 w.e.f. January, 1971 and those in the mechanic Grade-TV were in the scale of 355-455 w.e.f. the same date. However, those persons who were in Mechanic Grade-'B' post were also placed at the same pay scale of 340-490 at par with these petitioners w.e.f. January, 1971. The representation of these petitioners in respect of equivalence of pay were earlier considered but the enhanced scale to that of Mechanic Grade-TV was not granted instead the persons in the category of the Engine Driver, who had suffered loss of pay were granted the benefit of pay protection to avoid hardship. In fact, subsequent to that, the representation of the petitioners were again considered and by resolution of 1983 the Board of Governor observed that no further revision of pay scale of Engine Driver and Boiler Attendant is possible as the said claim had earlier been rejected twice. While rejecting the petitioners' representation, the respondent-Principal, R.I.T, Jamshedpur also recorded that these petitioners were allowed to get revised scales of pay as per the Mechanic Grade 'B' right from the date of appointment with their pay protection as a special case. Accordingly, all the consequential benefits including time bound promotions, first after 10 years of service in the year 1982 and second after 25 years in the year 1997 are at par with the Mechanic Grade 'B'. In these circumstances, by the impugned reasoned order the claim of the petitioners for grant of equivalence of scale to that of Senior Stenographer/Mechanic Grade 'A' was rejected.