Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) By this petition the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner salary and allowances in pay scale of Rs. 1200/- to 2040/- at par with other Store Keepers working in the establishment of respondents and not to discriminate the petitioner from similarly situated other Store Keepers. The relief sought in the writ petition rests on the facts that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Store Keeper in U.P. State Bridge Corporation in scale of pay of Rs. 200-320 on 25.11.1974. In the year 1978 various appointments were made by corporation on the posts of Store Keepers but the appointees were placed in pay scale of Rs. 250/- to Rs.425/-. It is alleged that nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the posts Store Keepers appointed subsequently and at the time of appointment of the petitioner is same and identical. It is also alleged that the initial pay scale of petitioner of Rs.200-320 was revised in the time scale of pay of Rs. 360/- to 550/- whereas pay scale of another set of store-keepers of Rs. 250/- to 425/- was revised in scale of Rs.440/- to 710/- by the year 1979. On 7.3.1990 several new appointments on the post of store keepers were made by the respondents in the pay scale of Rs. 440/- to 710/-. In the year 1990, while accepting the recommendation of Pay Rationalization Committee the respondents have again revised the pay scale of Rs. 350/- to Rs.550/- in scale of Rs. 950/- to Rs. 1500/-whereas pay scale of Rs.440/- to 710/- revised in scale of Rs.1200/- to 2040/-. Feeling aggrieved against the said discrimination, the petitioner moved several representations before the authorities concerned but finding no favour with them ultimately compelled to file above noted writ petition.
(2.) A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents in the writ petition, justifying the actions and inaction of respondents and in respect of grievances of the petitioner in para 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit the stand of the respondents are as under: 4. That instead of giving paragraph wise reply of the contents of the aforesaid writ petition, the deponent is giving a detailed reply of the main grievance raised by the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitioner (i.e. whether he should also be paid salary & other allowances equal to those persons who are doing similar Nature of work). The petition can be decided on the basis of averments made hereinafter in this affidavit. If necessary and required by the Hon'ble Court, the respondents will file a detailed reply answering the writ petitioner parawise. 5. That main grievance raised by the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition is that he has been appointed in the year 1974 in a pay scale of Rs. 200-250 EB-8-320, which has been later on revised/ raised to Rs. 360-550 and again revised to Rs. 950-1500 on the recommendation of the Pay Rationalisation Committee whereas other persons appointed as store keepers in Bridge Corporation were appointed in Pay Scale of Rs. 250-425 revised to Rs. 440-710 and further raised to Rs. 1200-2040 on the recommendation of the Pay Rationalisation Committee. Since all the store keepers working in Bridge Corporation are discharging similar type nature of work, hence the petitioner should also be given the pay scale as admissible to other store keepers working in the Bridge Corporation. In this connection, it is submitted the Bridge Corporation required store keepers having passed Diploma in Material Management. Accordingly, the Senior Personnel Officer of the U.P. State Bridge Corporation, wrote a letter dated 10.3.1978 to the Allahabad Polytechnic, Allahabad to send the list of the candidates, who have passed Diploma in Material Management and the proposed Pay Scale for these persons. The Training and Placement Officer of the Allahabad Polytechnic, Allahabad vide his letter dated 14.3.1978 sent names of 5 candidates, who have passed Diploma in Material Management and mentioned that Pay more than Rs.400/- per month is expected. On the basis of interview out of the 5 names sent by the Officer of the Allahabad Polytechnic, 3 persons were appointed on the post of Store Keeper in the Corporation vide office order dated 4.5.1978 in the pay scale of Rs. 250-425. However, only 2 candidates viz. Mahendra Kumar Pant and Shri Ram Shreya joined the post. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioner has passed only Intermediate examination and does not possess Diploma in Material Management. The petitioner and other persons working as store keepers and possessing qualification equal to that of the petitioner, have been placed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. It is also relevant to mention here that 5 persons, who were working in the Public Works Department as Store Keepers in the Pay Scale of Rs. 454-600 have been appointed (Prati Niyukta) in the U.P. State Bridge Corporation in the Pay Scale of Rs. 440-710 vide office order dated 7.3.1990. These appointments have been made under the circumstances mentioned in the letter dated 31.3.1992 written by the Deputy Manager (Personnel) to the Assistant legal Advisor, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited, Lucknow. It is necessary to mention here that these persons were already getting salary in pay scale of Rs. 454-600 in Public Works Department and therefore, they were appointed in the Pay Scale of Rs.440-710 so that they may not suffer loss in salary. (Their Pay was protected) due to special reasons mentioned in the letter dated 31.3.1992, referred above. True copy of the letter dated 31.3.1992 of the Deputy Project Manager (Personnel) alongwith enclosures is filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.-1 to this affidavit.
(3.) In reply to the averments made in the aforesaid counter affidavit the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit whereby he has brought on record the office order of further revision of pay scale of store keepers and other employees vide office order of Managing Director dated 23.8.2000 with effect from 1.5.2000. The stand taken in the writ petition has been reiterated again in para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit as under : 6. That in reply to averment made in paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1974 in pay scale 200-250 EB-8-320, which was subsequently revised in pay scale 360-550 and again in pay scale 950-1500 and at present in pay scale 3050-4590 whereas an other set of store keeper who was appointed in the year 1978 was initially appointed in pay scale 250-425 which was revised in pay scale 410-710 and again in pay scale 1200-2040 and at present in pay scale 4000-6000. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and other store keeper in pay scale 440-710 which was revised again and again discharged the same duties on the post of store keeper. The only difference which is being claimed is that the qualification for appointment of the store keeper in pay scale 440-710 was Material Management Diploma whereas the petitioner is intermediate is wholly misconceived as the petitioner was appointed in the year 1974 at that time the qualification of the post of store keeper was only Intermediate and mere enhancement of basic minimum qualification of a post subsequent to appointment of the candidate will not disentitle the person already working on the post and the benefit of higher pay scale as changed in the qualification of a post is always prospective will not be retrospective it is settled principle of law that minimum qualification is to be given at the time of initial appointment and subsequent change in the qualification for a particular post will not affect the person who has already appointed and since undisputedly the petitioner is discharging the same duty as other store keeper and all the store keepers under the Bridge Corporation have been assigned the same duty there is no justification of making difference in pay scale so far the appointment on the deputation a store keeper from P.W.D. concerned they have been posted in pay-scale 440-710 though they are only intermediate not fulfilling the qualification of material management diploma only because they were already working in P.W.D. and since the petitioner was working in the Bridge Corporation and those persons have come in Bridge Corporation to discharge the same function as is being discharged by the petitioner, the petitioner is also entitled for the same pay scale. The total effect of arbitrary action of the respondent is that though the petitioner is discharging the same duty and he is senior most store keeper in the Bridge Corporation but he is getting less pay scale than his junior who were appointed or absorbed in the corporation after the appointment of the petitioner. The present revise pay scale of all the employee of the Bridge Corporation as has been adopted by circular of the Managing Director dated 23.8.2000 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No.-l to this rejoinder affidavit. ;