Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 438 (JK)

Parveez Ahmad Khanday v. State of J&K

2016-08-23

R.SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. By the nature of relief sought in the writ petition and documents appended to the writ petition, the writ petition is taken up for disposal on the limited grounds that the claim of the petitioner was not accorded consideration by the competent authority. Petitioner in the petition claims that he was appointed as Jr. Engineer, Grade-II (Civil) in the pay scale of 1400-2300 on substantive basis. The copy of the order dated 08.12.1992 is appended to the writ petition as Annexure "A". He was thereafter appointed on the available vacancy in Public Health Engineering Department, Kashmir on the same scale of pay vide order dated 16.12.1992 appended to the writ petition as Annexure "B". 2. In order dated 09.04.2002, it appears that further appointments to the post of Jr. Engineer, Grade-II (Civil) were made and those Jr. Engineers who were also appointed in the grade of 1400-2300 were also given some benefit. According to the petitioner, the post of Jr. Engineer, Grade-II (Civil) carries the pay scale of Rs. 1760-3200 (Revised as 5700-10100) that was given to the persons who were appointed as Jr. Engineers in the year 1993 but the same was denied to the petitioner who was appointed earlier in time. The petitioner and other similarly placed Jr. Engineers who are qualified B.E., Civil Engineering, approached the higher authorities for rectifying and granting pay @ Rs. 1760-3200 (Revised as 5700-10100) in their favour. It is stated that candidates appointed in the year 1993 approached, this Court in SWP No. 1300/1996 which came to be disposed of on 05.11.1999, with a direction to the authorities to give benefit of revised pay scale from 1400-2300 to 1760-3200 to the writ petitioners therein. 3. The petitioner thereafter approached the higher authorities with a plea that being appointee of 1992, his claim for rectification of pay scale be also considered as the Jr. Engineers appointed in the year 1993 have already been accorded such benefit. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that despite making several representations before the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance, nothing happened, forcing the petitioner to file instant petition. Reliance is placed on a copy of Order No. 159-works of 2002, dated 09.04.2002, where under persons appointed in the year 1993 as Jr. Engineers were given the benefits as above. 5. Reliance is placed on a copy of Order No. 159-works of 2002, dated 09.04.2002, where under persons appointed in the year 1993 as Jr. Engineers were given the benefits as above. 5. According to the petitioner if subsequently appointed persons are given benefit of correction in the pay grade from 1400-2300 to 1760-3200 then there is no justification as to why petitioner should be treated differently. It will amount to hostile discrimination against the petitioner. The petitioner also relies upon Government Order No. 58 PW (R & B) of 2003, dated 13.06.2003, where under revised pay grade, i.e., 1760-3200 were given to the similarly situated appointees. Though the petitioner has relied upon two documents of the Government, one referred as Annexure "C" and the other Annexure "D" these documents are not available on record. However, perusal of the order of this court passed in SWP No. 1300/1996 on the claim of similarly situated persons would reveal that some employees were held to be entitled to higher scale in the order dated 5.11.1999. 6. No counter has been filed, however, Ms. Moksha Kazmi, learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that if the court is inclined, a direction may be issued to the higher authority to consider the eligibility of the petitioner if his claim falls within the parameters of the case titled Roshan Din Chowdhary & Ors. v. State bearing SWP No. 1300/1996, dated 05.11.1999 for release of pay scale of Rs. 1760-3200 (Pre-revised). 7. The 2nd contention is that the earlier claim was accepted primarily on the basis of Government Order dated 24.11.1997. As to whether such order will be applicable in the petitioner's case has to be considered by the authority on merits. The said plea is tenable and right. 8. The Government order dated 24.11.1997 and the court order reads as follows: "Subject: Placement of Junior Engineers Electric in the pay scale of 1760-3200 in place of existing pay scale of 1400-3200. Govt. Order No. 355-PDD of 1997, Dated: 24.11.1997. Sanction is hereby accorded to the placement of 123 Junior Engineers Electric (Degree/Diploma Holders) appointed vide Government Order No. 205-PDD of 1992, dated 21.10.1992 and No. 56-PDD of 1993, dated 30.03.1993 in the pay scale of 1760-3200 in place of existing pay scale 1400-3200 with immediate effect. This issue with the concurrence of Finance Department conveyed vide their No. A/166 (95)-1027, dated 20.10.1997. This issue with the concurrence of Finance Department conveyed vide their No. A/166 (95)-1027, dated 20.10.1997. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- (S.I. Sailova) ACS and Secretary to Government Power Development Department Dated: 24.11.1997" The Court observed as follows: "The further fact is that writ petition was dismissed. Matter was taken in appeal. Matter stands commanded. State was given liberty to file counter. Nothing has been done. This petition was taken up on 20.08.1999. State was given liberty to seek appropriate direction from the Division Bench. Hearing of this petition was again adjourned till 08.10.1999. Till date no counter has been filed. Therefore, petition is being taken up on the basis of the pleading as projected by the petitioners and also on the basis of stand taken in the objections. Had order dated 24.11.1997 not be placed on the record, something could have been said in favour of the state. It is issuance of this order which has created problem for the state. By this order Junior Engineer who came to be appointed on 21.10.1992, were given scale of Rs. 1760-3200. These employees have been given higher grades before completion of eight years of service. Therefore, it becomes clear that state has been placing Junior Engineers of its own in the grade of Rs. 1760-3200 even on 24.11.1997. If this be the position then petitioners cannot be treated differently. If their counterparts appointed earlier and letter has been given higher grade petitioners are also entitled to the same treatment. This petition is accordingly allowed. Petitioners are held entitled to the grade as has been given by the State in terms of Government order dated 24.11.1997 which grade is also being utilized by the earlier. Let grade be released within a period of three months from the date copy of order passed by this Court is made available by the petitioners to the respondents. In case it is not done then petitioners would be entitled to interest. The interest would be @ 12%. Disposed of accordingly." The Court after considering the order dated 24.11.1997 held that petitioners in these cases would be entitled to correction of the pay scale. 9. If the petitioner's case falls within the same parameters, the authority Government may consider his claim. The interest would be @ 12%. Disposed of accordingly." The Court after considering the order dated 24.11.1997 held that petitioners in these cases would be entitled to correction of the pay scale. 9. If the petitioner's case falls within the same parameters, the authority Government may consider his claim. Therefore, at this juncture, it is not necessary to express as on the merits of the applicability of Order No. 159-works of 2002, dated 09.04.2002 and Order No. 58 PW (R & B) 2003, dated 13.06.2003. It may, however, be necessary for the Government to consider these two Government Orders one dated 24.11.1997 and the subsequent order as to whether such order has relevance in relation to the claim of the petitioner for correction of pay scale from 1400-2300 to 1760-3200 with appropriate revision as may be applicable from time to time. 10. Since facts are not very clear insofar as various Government Orders that are referred and the issue having not been considered by the Government, this court is inclined to direct Respondent No. 4 to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner in the light of various Government Orders referred to above. A decision either way can be taken and if for any reason the claim is not justified, it shall be recorded by reasons. The authority to pass appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.