- (1.) K. D. Shahi, J. This contempt peti tion has been filed by U. P. Laboratory Tech nicians Association through the General Secretary and others against Smt. Sumita Kandpal, Principal Secretary, Medical, Heath and Family Welfare, U. P. Lucknow and Dr. P. D. P. Mathuf, Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow, to take action against them for wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 3-2-1993 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8345 of 1989.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. THEre is an association of Laboratory Technicians and Senior Laboratory Technicians working under the Director General, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh. THEre was some anamoly in the pay scale of Laboratory Technicians and Senior Laboratory Technicians and that of a Laboratory Assistants working under the same department. Previously, the Laboratory Assistants were sanctioned lower pay scale than the present petitioners. Subsequently, they were sanctioned higher pay scale as a result of which the present petitioners filed a writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 8345 of 1989. THE said petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 3-2-1993. A bare reading of the judgment that there were two direc tions. Firstly, the Laboratory Technicians will get the same pay scale as that of Laboratory Assistants within two months and secondly the Senior Laboratory Tech nicians should make a representation for higher pay scale giving details of the nature of duties they are performing and how these duties are more arduous than those of Laboratory Assistants. If such repre sentation is made within a month, the same shall be decided within two months there after by a reasoned order. I will take up the second direction first. This Court directed the Senior Laboratory Technicians to make repre sentation for higher pay scale within a month and the said representation was to be decided within two months. The Court did not specifically direct that the Senior Laboratory Technicians should be given better pay scale than that of the Laboratory Assistants. The Court only directed the respondents to decide the representation by a reasoned order. The representation has now been decided on 16-11-1994. A copy of the decision has been filed as Annexure- CA 3 to the supplementary counter affidavit of Shri V. K. Srivastava, Section Officer, dated 17-11-1994. It is fantastic that the supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 17-11-1994 and the decisions was given on the repre sentation only one day earlier i. e. on 18-11-1994. It appears that this is only just to satisfy the stomach of the decision by put ting something therein. The decision given by respondent No. 1 is in Hindi which if translated in English is that so far as the question of giving higher pay scale to the Senior Laboratory Technicians is con cerned, it is hereby informed that the present pay scale of Senior Laboratory Technicians is Rs. 1400-2300 which is higher than that of the Laboratory Technicians whose present pay scale is Rs. 1320-2040. Therefore, there is no question of giving any more higher pay scale to the Senior Laboratory Technicians. Consequently, the representation dated 27-2-1993. is hereby rejected.
(3.) WHAT this Court desired was that the Senior Laboratory Technicians should make a representation for higher pay scale indicating therein the nature of duties they were performing and also how their duties were more arduous than that of the Laboratory Assistants. In other words, the position of the Senior Laboratory Assis tants was to be compared with the position of the Laboratory Assistants, but the decision shows that the respondent No. 1 in a hot haste manner compared the pay scale of Senior Laboratory Technicians with that of the Laboratory Assistants. The respon dent No. 1 did not advert to the duties as signed to the Senior Laboratory Tech nicians and the Laboratory Assistants and whether. The duties of the Senior Laboratory Technicians are more arduous than that of the Laboratory Assistants and by a cryptic order rejected the repre sentation of the petitioners. In my view, the order passed by respondent No. 1 is not in conformity with the direction issued by this Court. It was imperative for respondent No. 1 to have considered the representation of the petitioners in the light of the directions issued by this Court. It appears that in order to show compliance of the order of this Court, the representation was rejected. The action of respondent No. 1 is wholly unbe coming and in not befitting to the status and the rank of the Principal Secretary. The Principal Secretary is the father, mother and guardian of the employees and officers of the entire Health Department and is sup posed to redress their genuine grievances. In view of what has been enumerated above, it is manifest that the order of this Court has not at all been complied with. As regards the first direction, it is stated that the said direction too has been complied with, but a bare perusal of the order dated 16-11-1994 shows that there was only notional compliance and nothing else. The respondent No. 1 has included the personal pay in the pay scale of Laboratory Technicians and in this way equated the Laboratory Technicians with the Laboratory Assistants in the matter of pay scale. The direction issued by this Court in respect of Laboratory Technicians is crystal clear and there is no ambiguity in it. It was specifically directed that the Laboratory Technicians will get the same pay scale as that of the Laboratory Assistants, but the respondent No. 1 has calculated the per sonal pay also in the pay scale of the Laboratory Technicians. Personal pay is personal pay and cannot be said to be a part of the pay scale. Therefore, the first part of the direction was also not complied with.;