JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. 1. All the five petitioners are working in the post of Occupational Therapist. They have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to make applicable revised recommendations of the Sixth Pay Committee - 2008, Dasvan Prativedan Bhag-7 in respect of Occupational Therapists for providing Pay Band-2 and Grade Pay Rs. 4600 w.e.f. January, 2006. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The petitioner no. 1 is posted at Rehabilitation & Artificial Limb Centre, King George Medical College, Lucknow. He was appointed on 07.09.1987 on ad hoc basis and his services were regularized on 27.10.1990. He did three year diploma in Occupational Therapy. 3. The petitioner no. 2 was appointed on 16.03.1999 and is working in the Department of Psychiatry & Drug De-Addiction, Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial College, Meerut. The petitioner no. 3 was appointed on 24.11.2009 in the post of Occupational Therapist and is presently posted at Government Medical College, Jalaun. The petitioner no. 4 was appointed on 24.11.2008 and presently he is working in Government Medical College, Azamgarh. The petitioner no. 5 was initial appointed on the post of Occupational Therapist on 24.02.2009. He is working in Government Medical College, Kannauj. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are in Pay Band-2 with the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- in terms of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Committee, Uttar Pradesh-2008, but as per revised pay recommendation given by the Pay Committee-2008 now they are entitled for the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- but the same has not been accepted by the State Government without disclosing any plausible reason. 5. It is stated that the State Government has framed U.P. Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998 (for short, "the Rules, 1998"). Under the said Rules, the qualification has been provided for Professional Occupational Therapist. They fulfill the said qualification. 6. It is also stated that the Director General, Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh in his communication dated 09.12.2014 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Anubhag-1, U.P. has sent a proposal for necessary orders for providing Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to the Occupational Therapists. The said document is on the record as annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. 7. 4600/- to the Occupational Therapists. The said document is on the record as annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. 7. It is further stated that without considering the recommendation of the Director General, who is the appropriate authority in respect of the employees working in the Medical Education and Training Department, without any cogent reason the State Government has refused to accept it vide communication dated 11.02.2015. 8. It is stated that the State Government has simply stated that the recommendation made by the Pay Committee (Navan Prativedan) cannot be accepted as the same is not practicable and if it is accepted, similar demand shall be raised in other departments also. 9. The petitioners have also raised a grievance that though upgraded/ amended grade pay has been granted by the State Government in respect of each Keet Sangrah Karta and Superior Field Worker from Grade Pay of Rs. 1800-1900 and has also accepted the recommendation in respect of Storekeepers but in the case of the petitioners the same has been rejected without any justifiable reason. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that with regard to the qualification prescribed under the Rules, 1998, Two-Year Diploma Course is not imparted in any of the Medical Colleges in the country. The alternative qualification prescribed under the Rules, 1998 is Degree from any recognized University. All the petitioners claim that they fulfill the said qualification. He submits that the petitioner no. 1 has undertaken Three-Year Diploma Course and the other petitioners are, admittedly, Degree holders. This averment of the petitioners that Two-Year Diploma course is not run by any University or College has not been specifically denied by the State. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has lastly urged that the Under Secretary in his communication dated 11.02.2015 has rejected the recommendation of the Director General on one of the grounds that in case the demand of the petitioners is accepted then similarly placed persons in other cadres will also raise the similar demand, is not a valid ground and the claim cannot be rejected on such ground which is only on the assumption. 12. Learned Standing Counsel has taken the Court to various paragraphs of the counter affidavit. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. 14. 12. Learned Standing Counsel has taken the Court to various paragraphs of the counter affidavit. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. 14. Admittedly, the petitioners have the essential qualification mentioned under the Statutory Rules, namely, U.P. Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998. The said Rules have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. One of the qualifications is Intermediate with Science and the said qualification is extracted herein below: %hnd1%"2. O;olkf;d fpfdRld% (,d). ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k dh foKku ds lkFk b.VjehfM,V ijh{kk ;k ljdkj }kjk led{k ekU;rk izkIr dksbZ ijh{kk vo'; mRrh.kZ gks A (nks). Lkjdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh laLFkk ls vkD;wis'kuy fFkjsih esa dksbZ mikf/k ;k fMIyksek gksuk vko';d gSA**%hnd2% 15. The Director General has noticed this fact and he has made a recommendation for the higher grade pay to all the Degree holders. As mentioned above, the petitioner no. 1 is a Diploma holder and other petitioners have Degree from various Universities/ Institutions. 16. In addition to above, the State Government on 03.06.1996 has permitted Santosh Medical/Dental College, Ghaziabad to run Paramedical Courses in some of the courses including Bachelor of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy etc. By issuing the said permission it has been made clear that the approval from the concerned Central Council, Government of India will also be obtained. 17. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the principle ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioners is that if their demand is accepted, similar demand shall be raised from other departments. 18. The above ground is unsustainable. If the petitioners are entitled for higher grade, their claim must be considered in accordance with law. 19. In view of the above, my view is that the grievance of the petitioners must be considered by the appropriate authority in the light of the recommendation of the Director General. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction upon the second respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction upon the second respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the second respondent comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for the higher grade pay then their cause will not be rejected on the ground that if the said claim is granted, the similarly placed persons in the other department will also raise their similar plea. 20. The decision shall be taken by the authority concerned within four months from the date of communication of this order. 21. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 22. No order as to costs.