Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 118 (UTT)

Mohan Lal Dhyani v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-08

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. 3. Petitioners before this Court are Plant Operators/Mechanics in the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Uttarakhand. They claim parity of salary with Junior Engineers who are working in the Irrigation Department, Minor Irrigation Department and other departments under the Government of Uttarakhand. The basis of this claim of the petitioners rests on the fact that their counterparts i.e., Junior Engineers in other departments of Government have the same qualifications i.e, diploma of three years in Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics Engineering. Admittedly, all the petitioners have done their diploma in Mechanic from Government Polytechnic and were subsequently working as such since 1988 onwards. It is also an admitted fact that the qualifications of Junior Engineer is also three years of diploma in Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics engineering. Another factor which is common to them is that they were on the same pay scale prior to Fifth Pay Commission. In the Fifth Pay Commission, the pay scale of diploma holders Junior Engineers in the various departments of Uttarakhand was increased. This was, however, not in the case of the petitioners and this remained so even in the Sixth Pay Commission. 4. Meanwhile, the petitioners were making representations to the Government authorities stating that the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission should be implemented in their case as they are doing the same work as that of Junior Engineer in other departments of Government and have the same qualifications as well and prior to the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission they were taking the same salary as Junior Engineers. An Order dated 11.03.2003 was issued by Principal Secretary, Finance by which the pay scale of three years diploma holders (who are Junior Engineers in departments) should be upgraded from pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7,000 to Rs.5,000-150-8,000. The petitioners bank upon the said order and state that although the posts which they are holding is not called Junior Engineer but they are also diploma holders of three years as these Junior Engineers and moreover in the order, their diploma has also been mentioned, where the salary of such employees needs to be upgraded. The petitioners bank upon the said order and state that although the posts which they are holding is not called Junior Engineer but they are also diploma holders of three years as these Junior Engineers and moreover in the order, their diploma has also been mentioned, where the salary of such employees needs to be upgraded. Their further contention is that in the Animal Husbandry Department, there is no post of Junior Engineer but the very mention of diploma of three years can refer to none but the posts which were being held by the present petitioners i.e., the post of Plant Operators/Mechanics. In short, they plead that the difference of any is only the nomenclature and effectively they perform the same work and have the same qualifications as Junior Engineers. Since the claim of the petitioners has been denied by the respondent authorities, hence they have filed the present writ petition before this Court. 5. The contentions of the petitioners is strongly opposed by the State counsel Mr. B.P.S. Mer who says that there was never any intention of the Government to upgrade the salary of the petitioners. The salary of only Junior Engineer working in various other departments was upgraded. Petitioners have not been working as Junior Engineers but they are Plant Operators/Mechanics and even for the sake of argument it is assumed that the qualifications of the Junior Engineers and Plant Operators/Mechanics are the same that would make little difference as that actually count is the work being performed on these posts which is absolutely different. 6. The petitioners on the other hand contend that the submissions of the learned counsel for the State Mr. B.P.S. Mer is contrary to the various recommendations which the Government authorities have also given in favour of the petitioners from time to time, a reference is being made of the letter dated 06.08.2013 which is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition wherein recommendations have been made to upgrade the salary of the petitioners as being done in the case of Junior Engineers since they have same qualifications and performing the same duties. 7. Merely because the petitioners have the same qualifications as that of Junior Engineers would not ipso facto entitle them to the salary which is being given to the Junior Engineers. 7. Merely because the petitioners have the same qualifications as that of Junior Engineers would not ipso facto entitle them to the salary which is being given to the Junior Engineers. In order to claim this higher scale, petitioners will also have to show that they are also performing the same duties or same nature of work and responsibilities as is being performed by their counterparts i.e., Junior Engineers in other departments. This is not presently reflected from any documents filed by the petitioners. 8. Moreover, this aspect can only be better ascertained after a detail examination. The petitioners, moreover, also contend that their cadre has already been declared as dying cadre. They never had channels of promotions in their carrier and now their cadre has also been declared as a dying cadre and therefore, there is a special equity as well which lies in their favour for grant of higher grade as is being given to the Junior Engineers. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view that merely because the petitioners’ posts on which they are working is Plant Operators/Mechanics and not Junior Engineers, this would be of little relevance as what would actually matter, apart from the qualifications to such posts is the work nature and responsibilities on these posts, etc. Nomenclature will be of little relevance. 10. All the same, as already stated above, this aspect has to be examined by the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand along with Finance Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand who shall give their findings and if they come to the conclusion that the petitioners were on the same pay scale earlier as that of Junior Engineers and their qualifications and work is the same by and large, a decision to upgrade their salary must be taken. Needless to say, if the findings are against the petitioners then they would not be entitled for the up gradation. 11. Let the needful be done in the matter as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed. No order as to costs.