Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Binder in the year 1971 at Government Press. Allahabad. In the year 1980, he was promoted to the post of binder and in 1989 petitioner was further promoted to the post of machine man. However, the post of machine man was again re -designated as binder. Petitioner and thousands of similar employees in the year 2004 requested the Government to grant equivalence to different posts including the post of binder with such posts which were carrying higher pay scale. The occasion to make the representation was that through Government orders dated 3.6.1989 and 21.8.1989 revised pay scales were made admissible to different types of employees of different departments of the Government of U.P. w.e.f. 1.1.1986 pursuant to the acceptance of recommendations of IVth Pay Commission. However, the said facilities were not extended to the employees of U.P. Government Presses including Government Press Allahabad. Accordingly, the employees made loud protest. Ultimately, the demand was accepted by the Government through Government order dated 31.7.1996, copy of which is Annexure -11 to the writ petition. In the said order, it is mentioned that a committee of Principal Secretaries was formed to consider and implement the recommendations of Samta Samiti headed by Chief Secretary regarding restructuring of posts and the committee headed by Chief Secretary made the recommendations, which were approved by the Governor for the restructuring as mentioned in the accompanying schedule. It was provided in para -2 of the G.O. dated 31.7.1996, that as far as the employees of Government Presses were concerned, they would be entitled to the benefit of restructuring from the date of the order, i.e., 31.7.1996. The grievance is that the benefit should have been extended with effect from 1.1.1986 or latest by 3.6.1989/21.8.1989.
(2.) SRI Sriprakash Singh, learned standing counsel has contended that the benefit to the petitioner cannot be granted retrospectively. Learned standing counsel has argued that thousands of similarly situate persons felt satisfied with prospective operation of the G.O. dated 31.7.1996. It has also been argued that grant of pay scale or equivalence entails huge financial burden upon the Government and after taking this aspect and host of other aspects, a decision is taken and in such policy decisions normally court shall not interfere. In this regard several authorities have been cited by the learned standing counsel including the authority of State of U.P. v. Section Officer, Brotherhood, : 2005 (1) UPLBEC 3 : 2004 (4) AWC 3396 (SC), in which Supreme Court held that granting equivalence to Section Officers, Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries and Assistant Registrars of Allahabad High Court with their counterparts in the Government and payment of same pay scale to both involves financial factor hence Chief Justice cannot pass order in this regard and as in 2001, Rules had been framed granting equivalence only to the Private Secretaries hence equivalence could not be granted to other employees like Section Officers, Bench Secretaries and Assistant Registrars. I fully agree with the argument of learned standing counsel. Petitioner became entitled to higher pay scale only after grant of equivalence. Accordingly, he cannot be paid higher pay scale since before that. There is no rule that equivalence shall have retrospective operation. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.;