- (1.) Heard Ms. Renu Mishra holding brief of Mr. P.K. Srivastava for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) The petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.12.1994 contained in Annexure No. 8 with a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner his salary in the pay scale admissible to the post of Draftsman (Mechanical) as indicated in Annexure-10 with a further direction to apply the judgment and order passed by this Hon'ble Court and contained in Annexure-3 with effect from the date of appointment of the petitioner and fix his salary accordingly from time to time with all consequential benefits of service including arrears of pay for which the petitioner would have entitled had his case been not discriminated.
(3.) The case of the petitioner simply is that he possesses the qualification of draftsman in Mechanical Engineering from a Government recognized institute. The petitioner was appointed on the post of draftsman. The appointment letter does not show that he was appointed on the post of draftsman (Civil) or Draftsman (Mechanical). However, the pay scale shown in his appointment letter was that of Draftsman (Civil). It so happened that two other persons namely Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tyagi and Mr. Chandra Bhan Goel were also appointed with the same service conditions. Incidentally all these three Draftsman were working in the same unit i.e. Ram Ganga Plant Design Division - III. The work taken from these people was that of Draftsman (Mechanical) which is in a higher pay scale. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tyagi and Mr. Chandra Bhan Goel represented their case along with the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale before the department. When the prayer was not heeded to Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tyagi and Mr. Chandra Bhan Goel approached the Public Services Tribunal through filing of a claim petition. The claim petition was dismissed. However, they preferred a writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 2913 of 1980 (Jitendra Kumar Tyagi and Anr. v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal and Ors.). Against the order of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 8.7.1991 allowed the writ petition by a detailed order. The Hon'ble High Court while dealing with the matter held that Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tyagi and Mr. Chandra Bhan Goel since had requisite qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, they could not have been appointed as Draftsman (Civil) against their qualification. Moreover, it was also established that the work of Draftsman (Mechanical) have been taken from them, as such it was not justified that they may be granted lower pay scale of Draftsman (Civil) while discharging the duties of Draftsman (Mechanical). The tribunal while dismissing the writ petition had made a strong recommendation to the State Government to create the post of Draftsman (Mechanical) the Hon'ble High Court taking cognizance of this fact observed that the State Government on one hand was using the petitioners as Draftsman (Mechanical) while paying lower grade salary of Draftsman (Civil) and on the other hand was not sanctioning the post of Draftsman (Mechanical). The plea of the Government that there is no sanctioned post of draftsman (Mechanical) did not find favour with the High Court. The argument from the petitioner's side was that from the initial appointment of the petitioners they were being required to do the job of Draftsman (Mechanical), hence, the argument that there is no sanctioned post was not acceptable. The writ petition was thus, allowed with Rs. 1000/-as costs from the State Government. It was also directed that if the arrears of salary were not paid to the petitioners the State Government shall be liable to pay 9% interest per annum.;