Vivek Chaudhary, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 23.12.1999 and 7.1.2000 passed by the Chief Engineer and the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, U.P., Lucknow. He has further prayed for a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay him salary of the pay scale prayed for in the relief clause which happens to be equal to the pay scale of the Junior Engineer of the department.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Work Charge Employee in Public works Department on 15.5.1974. he claims that he was made to discharge duties and responsibilities of the post of Junior Engineer. He further claims that by the order dated 26.5.1980 he was appointed on regular basis on the post of Sub-Station Attendant-cum-Supervisor in the pay scale of 300-500 in the regular Establishment of U.P. Public works Department. He claims that work was being taken from him could be performed by Junior Engineer also and hence he was performing the same duties as Junior Engineer would perform and except for designation and the eligibility criteria pay scale administrative control etc. are same as that of the Junior Engineer of U.P. Public Works Department. The petitioner was confirmed with effect from 1.2.1990. He further claims that his educational qualification is Intermediate Diploma with Electrical Engineering which is also required educational qualification for the post of Junior Engineer.
(3.) It appears that during the course of service, petitioner was placed under a Junior Engineer against which the petitioner represented and the said representation was decided in his favour by the State Government by order dated 5.5.1981 stating that he has performed similar duties as Junior Engineer and cannot be placed under a Junior Engineer. The submission of the petitioner is that different time scales are provided to Junior Engineers on completion of 4 years, 10 years and 19 years of service. The same are available only to the post of Junior Engineer and were not given to the petitioner. The petitioner moved representation for the said purpose. The said representation is rejected by the impugned order. Hence the present writ petition.;