- (1.) PETITIONER-appellant before this Court is employed as Assis tant Treasury Accountant in District Kaushambi. This intra Court appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27. 11. 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 43109 of 2004. The learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition being devoid of substance.
(2.) FACTS in brief relevant for deciding this Special Appeal are as follows: Petitioner-appellant was appointed as an Assistant Treasury Accountant. He joined on 28. 10. 1999 in District Kaushambi and has been continuously working as such. The State Government took a policy decision dated 6/8/1998 that in terms of the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee (Samata Samiti) of the year 1989, the posts of Treasury Accountants and Assistant Accountants exist ing on date in a particular District may be so adjusted as to maintain a ratio of 80:20 with effect from 1. 1. 1986. Subsequently, a clarification was issued by the State Government on 12. 5. 2000, which provided that grant of higher pay scale for maintaining the ratio of 80:20 will not amount to promotion to the post carrying the higher pay scale. From the aforesaid Government Order, it logically follows that persons who were appointed as Assistant Accountants in the Accounts De partment of District Treasury were to be sanctioned higher pay scales applicable to the post of Accountants created upto 1. 1. 1996 so as to maintain the ratio of 80:20, meaning thereby that 80 per cent of the incumbents would draw the salary applicable to the post of Accountant while 20 percent incumbents would draw the salary applicable to the post of Assistant Accountant. The petitioner along with other incumbents is said to have been appointed in the District Treasury, Kaushambi against the newly created posts in the year 1999. A list for maintaining the ratio of 80:20 was prepared in the District Kaushambi on 21/6/2001 and in the said list the name of the petitioner- appellant finds men tioned at Serial No. 9. Persons up to Serial No. 8 of the said list were granted higher pay scale i. e. pay scale admissible to the post of Accountant with refer ence to the aforesaid Government Order for maintaining 80:20 ratio from the date of their initial appointment vide order dated 14. 12. 2004. The aforesaid persons had neither completed three years of service with reference to the relevant Gov ernment Order nor they had passed the departmental examination on the date from which such higher pay scale has been granted to them.
(3.) THE State Government however came out with another Government Order dated 22. 5. 2003 whereby the grant of higher pay scale to Assistant Accountants who did not fulfil the required terms and conditions of the Government order dated 1. 1. 1986 was protected. This became the cause for the petitioner to approach this Court with a plea that if the petitioner had also been granted higher pay scale applicable to the post of Accountants for maintaining the ratio of 80:20 as has been done in the case of persons mentioned at Serial Nos. 4 and 8 of the list prepared for the purpose his grant would also have been similarly protected under the Government Order dated 22. 5. 2003. In the alternative, petitioner questions the Government Order dated 22. 5. 2003 on the plea that it is discriminatory as it creates a class among class. Since his representations for the purpose were not being considered he filed Writ Petition No. 43109 of 2004.;