Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the pay scale of 355 -570 should be awarded to the petitioner from the date of appointment i.e. 29.11.1978 with all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Helper Gr. II and thereafter the petitioner was selected and regularly appointed on the post of Tracer as direct recruitee in the pay scale of 295 -500. Pursuant to the appointment order dated 29.11.1978 petitioner's basis salary was fixed at Rs. 295/ -. The petitioner is in possession of qualification Post Graduate though not in possession of the qualification of ITI but then being qualified otherwise, appointed on the post of Tracer. The issue raised in the writ petition is in regard to the discrimination for grant of pay scale inasmuch as while the petitioner was given the pay scale of 295 -500, the other employees having lesser qualification than the petitioner and not ITI were given the pay scale of 355 -570 pursuant to the directions of this Court in various writ petitions. The petitioner's claim is that person having less qualification and even junior are being given a higher pay scale thus the petitioner is also entitled for parity and otherwise the petitioner's claim is also substantiated by applying the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents but when nothing came out, the writ petition is being filed. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner was recruited on the post of Tracer against the direct recruitment quota thus he is not considered to be promotee on the post of Tracer as in otherwise the cases decided by this Court in the case of Kishan Lal, Bajrang Lal etc. It is contended that the post of Tracer was having pay scale of 295 -500, at the relevant time of the appointment of the petitioner for non -ITI holders whereas the pay scale of 355 -570 was for ITI holders thus two different pay scale were provided for the same post on the ground of qualification and as the petitioner was not in possession of the qualification of the ITI, therefore, he was given the pay scale of 295 -500. Referring to the judgment of this Court it is contended that the Court has given direction for grant of higher pay scale of 355 -570 to the non -ITI holders also in case of promotion and not direct recruitees. It is further urged that this Court was cautious enough to make observation that while making direct recruitment a lower pay scale can be provided to non -ITI holder but for those who are already serving the Department and being promoted as per their seniority position should not be denied higher pay scale on the ground of qualification. Thus according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, even this Court itself made it clear that for direct recruitees, a lower pay scale can be given to those who are not holding qualification of ITI. Averting the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding higher qualification of the petitioner qua other employees as well as their seniority position the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the qualification provided in the Rules alone is relevant and thus if required qualifications are fulfilled by the candidate then possession of some other higher qualification like M.A. does not give a better claim to any candidate more so when Rule does not provide for possession of any such higher qualification inasmuch as Post Graduate is not a required qualification under the Rules for a technical post, as otherwise possessed by the petitioner. The justification of qualification in regard to the pay scale exist only in regard to the qualification of ITI and non -ITI which is otherwise a technical qualification concerned to the post, being a post of Tracer. Even different pay scale can be provided considering the technical post and the qualification of the technical field, therefore, their exist rational in providing two pay scales which then cannot be interfered by this Court inasmuch as if even non -ITI/direct recruitees are also given higher pay scale then virtually the lower pay scale of the same post will become redundant therefore, the prayer of the learned Counsel for the respondent is to dismiss the writ petition.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scan the matter carefully. It is not in dispute that the post of Tracer is a technical post and carries two pay scale and the difference of the pay scale is on the basis of qualification. The petitioner was directly recruited on the post of Tracer for being in possession of the required qualification for the pay scale of 295 -500. So far as the fixation of pay scale is concerned, that has been on the basis of qualification of ITI or non -ITI inasmuch as certain additional benefits of higher pay scale has been given to those who are having qualification of ITI being the technical qualification concerned to the post. Therefore, higher pay scale has been given to a more qualified technical person. In those circumstances if a candidate is not in possession of the technical qualification as attached to the higher pay scale cannot claim parity. Referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kishan Lal and many others where non -ITI promotees were given benefit of higher pay scale, this Court was cautious enough to say that difference of the pay scale can be provided on the basis of qualification only while making direct recruitment and not for the promotees, therefore, even in direct recruitment, the court indirectly justified the lower pay scale and in view of the above also the judgment of this Court does not support the petitioner rather indirectly it goes against the petitioner on the issue. It is apart from the fact that the petitioner being working on the post of Helper is not being promoted in order of seniority thus merely for the reason that petitioner was working with the Department cannot claim the same benefit as otherwise being given to the promotees inasmuch as the promotion to the post of Tracer would have been given to the petitioner in order seniority and not otherwise thus petitioner being a direct recruitee for the post of Tracer, cannot claim parity with those who are promoted in order of seniority and additional benefit is given pursuant to the judgment of this Court.;