State of Uttar Pradesh v. Madan Mohan Singh — 1988 DIGILAW 451 (ALL)

JUDGMENT A.P. Misra, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated 8.3.1984 passed by the 1st, Civil Judge, Kanpur in execution proceedings by virtue of which the application of the State Government that the respondents are not entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 550 - 1200 from 1.8.1972 was rejected. 2. According to the case of the present applicant the present respondents, degree holders were lecturers in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the Central Textiles Institute, Kanpur. Besides them there were lecturers in other two categories, namely Engineering and Spinning Weaving Dying and Printing. Lecturers in Engineering category were posted in class II services in the pay scale of Rs. 400 - 900 on 1.4.1965. While the degree holders category was class III service, the pay scale of which Rs. 250 - 550 on 1.4.1965 and the third category of Lecturers in Spinning Weaving, Dying and Printing were also in class III service in the pay scale of Rs. 225 - 500 on 1.4.1965. The scales were revised, according to the first Pay Commission report 1971 - 73, converting the first category of class II service lecturers to Rs. 550 - 1200 and that of the second and third category of class III service lecturers to Rs. 400 - 750. This revision of pay became effective from 1.8.1972. Thereafter, second Pay Commission report 1979 - 80 came by virtue of which further revision was made in the pay scale and by virtue of which the scales of all the three categories of lecturers were revised upgrading the second and third categories of lecturers to class II service and prescribing the same scale of Rs. 850 - 1720 for all the three categories of lecturers. The pay scale was effective from 1979. Thus the case of the State was that the degree holders have already been allowed pay scale of Rs. 550 - 1200 from 1.6.1978 and they are not entitled to the said scale from 1.8.1972. The case of the State further is that the other lecturers who were also working in the scale of Rs. 400 - 750 did not hold the requisite equivalent qualification as recommended by the pay anomaly committee and thus could not get the pay scale of Rs. The case of the State further is that the other lecturers who were also working in the scale of Rs. 400 - 750 did not hold the requisite equivalent qualification as recommended by the pay anomaly committee and thus could not get the pay scale of Rs. 550 - 1200 as the degree in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics are not equivalent to the degree in Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Radio Engineering, and Electronics, Tele Communication. It is on this ground it is urged that the executing Court could not execute the decree by virtue of die impugned order as the respondents, even as per the Tribunals order, would not be entitled for the said pay. 3. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the question which is being raised by the State Government has been raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal having rejected the same and having directed pay the respondents the pay scale of Rs. 550 - 1200 as paid to the other lecturers is binding on the State Government. 4. The only question remains for determination is whether the Tribunal has gone into the question or not? If the question was raised and decided by the Tribunal then the executing Court was within its competence to have directed to pay the grade to the respondents as per order of the Tribunal. The objection which has been raised by the State in the present revision was also raised before the executing Court. I find from the judgment of the Tribunal which has been produced by the respondents today that the question was strictly raised therein. It has been clearly stated in the said Tribunal judgment that the State admitted the pay anomaly committee recommendation of Rs. 550 - 1200 for the lecturers of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics to which the respondents also belong but then it has been said that the aforesaid recommendation was subject to fulfilment of the prescribed qualifications. Further it has also recorded a finding that the principal vide his letter sought approval of the Director for the fixation of pay of the respondents in the pay scale of Rs. 550 - 1200 with effect from 1.6.1978 but the then Director informed to the principal that the pay scale Rs. 550 - 1200 has been allowed only to the lecturers of Engineering degree holders. 550 - 1200 with effect from 1.6.1978 but the then Director informed to the principal that the pay scale Rs. 550 - 1200 has been allowed only to the lecturers of Engineering degree holders. It has further been found by the Tribunal that there is no just and proper basis for not accepting the pay Anomalies Committee Report. It has been held by the Tribunal that the respondents will be entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 550 - 1200 with effect from the date from which the other lecturers have given the pay scale of Rs. 550 - 1200.1 do not find any infirmity of illegality in the said judgment. 5. The learned Standing Counsel, Sri D. P. Gupta has urged that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree, whether the executing Court has gone behind the decree or not. Since the respondents degree holders were not qualified and therefore, were not entitled to that grade and the executing Court mainly having held that the respondents will be entitled to the grade as was given to the other lecturers. Thus the matter was reopened and the executing Court should have examined this matter to come to its own conclusion. It is, however, seen that the very question which has been raised here was raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rejected those contention and Tribunal has directed that the respondents are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 550 - 1200 irrespective of the fact that they were not qualified. It cannot be said that the executing Court has gone behind the decree. 6. There is no illegality committed by the executing Court in passing the impugned order. Accordingly the revision is dismissed with costs.