UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJ KUMAR
LAWS(UTN)-2012-7-89
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 24,2012

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH,.J. - (1.) IN the claim petition, which has been allowed by the judgment of the Tribunal, impugned in the present writ petition, it was the contention of the claimant before the Tribunal and private respondent to this writ petition, that while the case of Kailash Chandra, a junior to him, was considered for up gradation to Highly Skilled Grade II and, thereafter Highly Skilled Grade I, for no just reason, the case of the claimant, respondent herein, for such up -gradations had not been considered. Kailash Chandra was appointed as Painter on 26th June 1978, and the respondent was appointed also as a Painter, but on 18th April, 1979. Therefore, apparently, Kailash Chandra was not junior to the respondent. The Tribunal found that, by a fiction of law, Kailash Chandra became junior to the respondent.
(2.) PAINTERS , immediately prior to 15th October 1984, were entitled to the pay scale of '210 -290. By the Government Order dated 15th October 1984, the said pay scale was revised to '260 -400. While the said revision was made, it was provided that the revised scale of '260 -400 shall be regarded as the pay scale of skilled grade. In the said Government Order, it was mentioned that 65 per cent of the people working in the trade will be regarded as skilled grade employees. It was also mentioned that Highly Skilled Grade II, having a scale of '330 -480, will form 20 per cent of the trade and Highly Skilled Grade I, having a pay scale of '380 -580, will form 15 per cent of the trade. Therefore, in terms of said order, a Painter, working in the scale of '210 -290, will automatically come in the revised pay scale earmarked for skilled grade of '260 -400. Thereafter, a person, in the skilled grade, will be entitled to Highly Skilled Grade II, provided he comes within 35 per cent of the total strength of the trade and, then, he shall be entitled to Highly Skilled Grade I, provided he comes within 15 per cent of the trade. It may be possible that in order to come to the Highly Skilled Grade II, one is required to pass the trade test and, similarly in order to come to the Highly Skilled Grade I, one is required to pass also yet another trade test, but that had not been provided in the order dated 15th October, 1984. In the order dated 15th October 1984, two very important things were provided, namely (i) that people working in the pay scale of '210 -290 having rendered a minimum three years of service in the grade and after passing the prescribed trade tests will be inducted in the skilled grade, and (ii) direct recruits with ITI certificate / Es -trade Apprentices / NCTVT etc. inducted in the Semi Skilled Grade, who have rendered two years service in that grade, will automatically come in the skilled grade. The Tribunal has noticed, to which no challenge has been thrown in the writ petition, that Kailash Chandra was in the pay scale of '210 -290 and, though, worked for three years and, though rendered three years service as Painter, but did not pass the prescribed trade test. Kailash Chandra was brought in the skilled grade and, thereafter, he was taken to Highly Skilled Grade II and, subsequent thereto, to Highly Skilled Grade I. The Tribunal has also noted, to which also, there is no dispute in the instant writ petition, that the respondent at the time of recruitment had ITI certificate and, accordingly, having had rendered two years service in the grade of '210 -290, he was entitled to be inducted in the skilled grade, without passing any prescribed test. Therefore, while the respondent would come to the skilled grade within two years from the date of his induction, Kailash Chandra would be inducted in the skilled grade after three years of having rendered service and after passing the prescribed test. In the circumstances, respondent will get an 3 advantage over Kailash Chandra by about four months and will, accordingly, be senior to him. Having had thus concluded, and there being no dispute that, while the case of up gradations of the pay scale of Kailash Chandra was considered, the case of up gradations of the pay scales of the respondent was not considered, Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent herein, and directed the writ petitioners herein to consider the case of the claimant for grant of similar benefits of up gradation to him from the date his junior Sri Kailash Chandra has been granted without consequential benefits.
(3.) THAT being the conclusion, in the facts and circumstances of the case as above, we find no reason to interfere. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.