Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 516 (UTT)

Jagdish Ram Tamta v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-09-11

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2023
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following substantive relief:- “I. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to treat the post of Psychologist in Ashram Padhati School under the Department of Social Welfare (Tribal Welfare) as equivalent to the post of Psychologist in the Department of Education, Govt. of Uttarakhand and consequently grant similar status and pay scale of the post of Psychologist to the petitioners with effect from the date of their appointments on the said post as has been granted to the similarly situated Psychologist in the Ashram Padhati School. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to grant of the benefit of Pay Scale of Rs. 8000-13500 of the post of Psychologist as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. the date of appointment/sanction of petitioner on the post of Psychologist in the Ashram Padhati Schools of the State i.e. 01.07.2001 and accordingly fix the pay scale and salary of the petitioner in the Pay Scale of the post of Psychologist as revised under the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission and 7th Pay Commission, more particularly when the similarly situated persons have been granted the same benefit, in compliance of the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to revise the salary of the petitioner on the post of Principal of the Govt. Ashram Padhati Higher Secondary School as per the pay scale applicable on the Principal of the Govt. Schools of the Education Department and consequently revise the pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner from 30.09.2020. IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the difference of the salary of the post of Psychologist and Principal in the Ashram Padhati School and the post of Psychologist and Principal in the Department of Education from the date of appointment of the petitioner on the said post along with arrears of the salary, more particularly when the similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of revision of the Pay Scale in compliance of the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Petitioner was appointed as Psychologist in Government Ashram Padhati School run by State Tribal Welfare Department on 25.09.1992 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-40-1800 efficiency bar Rs.2300. The pay scale for the post of Psychologist, to which petitioner was appointed, was revised to Rs.4500-125-7000 after implementation of recommendation of 5th Pay Commission and as per 6th Pay Commission Report, his pay scale was revised to Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200. 3. Petitioner has claimed pay parity with Psychologist serving in School Education Department. He has relied upon a judgment rendered by coordinate Bench in WPSB No. 66 of 2008 (Inam Ali vs State of Uttarakhand & others, decided on 25.03.2010). In the case of Inam Ali (supra), writ petition was allowed with the following directions:- “The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 1.12.2005 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to give the arrears of pay scale to the petitioner from the same date as is being given to the counterparts of the petitioner in Education Department in the State of Uttarakhand i.e. w.e.f. 1st July, 2001.” 4. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. for the State, however, submitted that reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Inam Ali (supra) is misplaced, inasmuch as, Inam Ali was appointed as Principal in Government Ashram Padhati School and he was claiming parity with Principal serving in School Education Department, which was granted by coordinate Bench of this Court. 5. Learned State Counsel points out that the post of Psychologist in Tribal Welfare Department on which petitioner was appointed, cannot be compared with the post of Psychologist in School Education Department. He submits that status, nature of duties/responsibilities and mode of recruitment for the post of Psychologist in School Education Department are entirely different, therefore, petitioner’s claim for pay parity with Psychologist serving in the said department is misconceived. He further points out that petitioner was promoted as Superintendent in Tribal Welfare Department w.e.f. 24.06.2004, and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Principal in Ashram Padhati School (equivalent to Headmaster serving in School Education Department) w.e.f. 21.09.2011 and he was paid salary admissible for the post of Headmaster in the scale of Rs.15600-39100/- with grade of Rs.5400/-. Thus, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner’s claim for grade pay of Rs. Thus, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner’s claim for grade pay of Rs. 5400/- from the date of his initial appointment is unsustainable, as he was appointed on a Class-III post; while, grade pay of Rs.5400/- was admissible only to holders of Class-II post. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that one Mr. Manohar Gururani, who was serving as Psychologist in Ashram Padhati School filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2474 of 2016, which was decided in terms of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 66 of 2008, ‘Inam Ali v. State of Uttarakhand’, and in compliance of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2474 of 2016, Mr. Manohar Gururani has been granted grade pay of Rs.5400/- from due date. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that grant of grade pay of Rs.5400/- to Mr. Manohar Gururani was under threat of contempt and it is subject to final outcome of Special Appeal No. 263 of 2018, which is pending before Division Bench of this Court. Thus, he submits that petitioner cannot claim any benefit out of the judgment rendered in the case of Mr. Manohar Gururani, as the said judgment has not attained finality. Learned State Counsel made a statement at the bar that except Mr. Manohar Gururani, no other Psychologist has been granted grade pay of Rs.5400/-. 8. We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondents. From the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 66 of 2008, it is revealed that Mr. Inam Ali was directly appointed as Principal of Rajkiya Ashram Padhati Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya. In his writ petition, he had pleaded that salary and status of Principal serving in Ashram Padhati Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya is equivalent to that of Principal serving in Education Department. His grievance was that he was given benefit of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.12.2005; while, Principals serving in Education Department were given such benefit w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Coordinate bench of this court held that since Mr. Inam Ali is being paid revised salary, admissible for the post of principal w.e.f. 01.12.2005 and State Government has not given any plausible explanation for not giving him the said benefit w.e.f. 01.07.2001, therefore, it was held that he shall be entitled to revised pay scale admissible for the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Inam Ali is being paid revised salary, admissible for the post of principal w.e.f. 01.12.2005 and State Government has not given any plausible explanation for not giving him the said benefit w.e.f. 01.07.2001, therefore, it was held that he shall be entitled to revised pay scale admissible for the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Thus, in the case of Mr. Inam Ali, the question of pay parity was not decided and only it was held that the benefit of pay revision should be given to Mr. Inam Ali from due date i.e. 01.07.2001. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be pressed in service in support of petitioner’s claim for pay parity with Psychologist serving in School Education Department. The Benefit given to Mr. Manohar Gururani under threat of contempt cannot be made basis for grant of similar benefit to petitioner, especially, when appeal against the judgment rendered in favour of Mr. Manohar Gururani, is pending consideration before this Court. 9. It is not in dispute that the cadre structure in Tribal Welfare Department is different from that of Education Department. In Education Department, post of Superintendent is not available to which petitioner was promoted in 2004 and he was given pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 from the date of his promotion, and thereafter, he was promoted as Principal and he was granted pay scale of Rs.15,600-39100 with Grade pay of Rs.5400/- from the date of his promotion. 10. Learned State Counsel points out that post of Psychologist and Assistant Psychologist have been abolished by Education Department, therefore according to him, petitioner cannot claim pay parity with a post, which does not exist anymore in Education Department. He further points out that petitioner filed this writ petition three years after his retirement. 11. We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the State. For claiming pay parity with a post in some other department, the person claiming pay parity has to prove that both the posts are having same duties and responsibilities, same status, same qualification, mode of recruitment etc. In the absence of necessary pleadings, petitioner’s claim for pay parity cannot be allowed, especially, when the pay scale for the post of Psychologist in Education Department and Tribal Welfare Department was different since the time petitioner was appointed. 12. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the absence of necessary pleadings, petitioner’s claim for pay parity cannot be allowed, especially, when the pay scale for the post of Psychologist in Education Department and Tribal Welfare Department was different since the time petitioner was appointed. 12. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.