HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.86 of 2007 State of Uttarakhand & others … Appellants Versus Uttarakhand Government Degree Colleges & others ...Respondents Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. Dated : July 19th 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records. 2. Respondents approached this Court in the year 2006 seeking a mandamus directing the appellants to pay to the respondents their salaries in the scale of ` 570-1100 with effect from 01.07.1979 and ` 1400-2600 with effect from 01.01.1986 and revised scale of ` 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and by the judgement and order under appeal a writ of mandamus to that effect has been issued. The principal reason in support of the judgment and order under appeal is that the decision of the Government to that effect was implemented in the Head Office but was not 2 implemented in the Subordinate Office. The learned judge who dealt with the writ petition proceeded on the basis that on 29th September, 1981 the State Government agreed to pay to Office Superintendent Grade-II salary in the scale of ` 570-1100 and to Office Superintendent Grade-I in scale of ` 625-1360 and though the same was implemented in the Head Office but was not implemented in the Subordinate Office. The learned judge accordingly, while allowing the writ petition issued a mandamus to that effect. 3. The fact remains as was pleaded in the writ petition itself that since 1st August, 1972 there was a post of Pradhan Sahayak, a post of Pradhan Lipik and a post of Jyestha Pralekhak in the Head Office; whereas there was a post of Head Clerk/Head Clerk cum Accountant in the Subordinate Offices. It would also be evidenced from the pleadings made in the writ petition that Second Pay Commission recommended that Pradhan Sahayak, Pradhan Lipik and Jyestha Pralekhak available in the Head Office be designated respectively as Superintendent Grade-I, Superintendent Grade-II and Senior Assistant; whereas the said Commission recommended that the designation of Head Clerk/Head Clerk cum Accountant available in the Subordinate Offices be changed to Office Superintendent (without grading them as Office Superintendent Grade-I or Grade-II). 4. It would further be evident from the pleadings filed in the writ petition that the Government accepted the said 3 recommendation and accordingly, with effect from 01.07.1979, a post of Superintendent Grade-I, a post of Superintendent Grade-II and a post of Senior Assistant become available in the Head Office, whereas a post of Office Superintendent (without grading as Superintendent Grade-I or Grade-II) was available in the Subordinate Office. The Third Pay Commission recommended change of the nomenclature of Superintendent Grade-I to Administrative Officer. The said state of affairs clearly indicates that successive Finance Commissions never felt at any point of time that post of Head Clerk/Head Clerk cum Accountant available in the Subordinate Offices were equivalent to the posts of Pradhan Sahayak or Pradhan Lipik available in the Head Office. None of the Finance Commissions at any point of time recommended treatment of Pradhan Sahayak or Pradhan Lipik as available in the office at par with that of Head Clerk/Head Clerk cum Accountant available in Subordinate Office. The Government at the same time had no occasion to treat them to be equal. There was, therefore, nothing on the record of the writ petition on the basis whereof it could be gathered that the respondents were entitled to the pay scale of Superintendent Grade-II. In the writ petition, there was no averment pertaining to a report of Samata Samiti of March 1989. It has been recorded in the judgment and order under appeal that in page 42 of the said report there was a recommendation for changing the designation of Office Superintendent Grade-II by Office Superintendent. The records of the Court do not contain any report of Samata 4 Committee, accordingly, we may proceed only to the extent that such a recommendation may have had been made by such a Committee. However, the judgment and order under appeal does not record that the said recommendation contained in the said report, was at any point of time accepted by the Government. In any event, the assertions made by the petitioners themselves in the writ petition are contrary to the recommendations contained in the said report. 5. We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 19.07.2011 Arti