Decided on January 12,1995

Dipak Bose Appellant


Basudev Panigrahi, J. - (1.)In the above three writ petitions there being common question of law and facts were heard together and are disposed of under a common order. The Petitioners in all the three above -mentioned writ petitions filed application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a writ in the nature of mandamus against the opposite parties directing them to keep the same scale of pay in par with the Surveyors working in different departments.
(2.)These Petitioners joined service between 1974 and 1985 after being recruited as Amins on different dates. They are now attached to different District Land and Land Reforms Offices in Midnapore, Hooghly and South/ North 24 -Parganas. It is further case of the Petitioners that they were appointed on the basis of certificates obtained from the Survey Training Institute possessing the qualification to be appointed as Surveyors and Amins. Previous to these writ petitions there were number of cases filed by the different groups of Amins claiming parity in the scale of pay with the Surveyors. The Surveyors Association moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in C.R. 518(W)/65, and during the pendency of the said Rule the Government issued a notification vide No. 5212F dated December 30, 1990. The Amins those who worked during the period of 1961 were allowed to draw the scale of pay of Rs. 100 -140. In a previous litigation it appears that the Single Judge of this Court Hon'ble D. Basu J. as His Lordship then was, directed to remove the anomaly in the scale of pay between the Amins and Surveyors. Pursuant to the said direction the discrepancy whatever existed between the scale of pay of Amins and the Surveyors was removed. In obedience to the direction of the Court in C.R. 518(W)/65 the Government, inter alia, passed an order giving the same salary to the Petitioners in the above case as that of the Surveyor, in another C.R. 193(W)/74 the same order was passed. So far as these Petitioners are concerned, such discrepancy still existed and no step was taken by the Respondents for rationalization of their scale with the scale of pay of the Surveyors. Therefore, they challenged in these writ applications that the action of the Respondents in not giving same salary as that of the Surveyor is unreasonable, capricious and irrational. The Government should not have allowed such discrimination to exist in the scale of pay of both the categories of employees.
(3.)In another writ application, i.e. C.R. 6053(W)/78 and C.R. 6593(W)/78 His Lordship Sabyasachi Mukherjee J., as His Lordship then was, even allowed the special allowance to the Petitioners of that case as that was admissible to the Surveyors. When the Respondents did not rise from their slumber and had refused in giving the same scale of pay as admissible to the Surveyors, these Petitioners were constrained to file the above -mentioned writs. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed their affidavit -in -opposition where they have claimed that the qualification of the Amin is entirely different than that of Surveyor. In case of Amin a candidate has to pass School Final or its equivalent by the Board of Education, West Bengal. For recruitment to the post of Amin the knowledge of survey has not been described as prerequisites while in case of the Surveyors essential qualification includes that a candidate should possess his proficiency in survey knowledge and a pass certificate in the Senior Survey Course conducted by the West Bengal Survey Institute or a National Trade certificate, it is further claimed that the nature of duties as performed by the Amin is not identical to that of the Surveyor. The responsibility in case of a Surveyor is onerous than that of an Amin. The Amins are required to be acquainted with plain table gunter's chain, optical square etc., whereas the Surveyors are to perform with sight vane, theologize, prismatic compass and other complicated and intricate and hazardous nature of job which requires super -technical knowledge.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.