IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1523 of 2001 (S/S) (Old No. 17250 of 1994) Mathura Dutt Joshi S/o Sri Ambe Dutt Joshi R/o New Shera G.I.C. Road District Pithoragarh … Petitioner Versus 1. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary, U.P. Shasan Civil Secretariat Lucknow. 2. The Chairman, Board of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow 3. The District Magistrate/Collector District Pithoragarh 4. State of Uttaranchal through Chief Secretary, Uttaranchal Secretariat Dehradun 5. Chief Revenue Commissioner Uttaranchal, Dehradun …Respondents Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner Herendra Belwal, learned standing counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of the writ petition, the relief has been sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give salary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as was given to other electricians who are working in the other Government Departments. Brief facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an electrician in the Office of District Magistrate/Collector, Pithoragarh on 04.04.1982. The petitioner joined his service on 08.04.1982 and he is continuously working on the said post to the satisfaction of his superior authorities. As per the averments made in the petition the initial appointment of the petitioner was made in the pay scale of Rs. 175-230 in the Office of 2 District Magistrate/Collector, Pithoragarh. However, the pay scale was revised on the recommendation of IV Pay Commission and the new pay scale given to the petitioner was Rs. 825-1200/-. The petition further reveals that the other electricians/tube well operators working in the various Departments are getting their revised pay scale after the report of the IV Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1986. It further reveals from the petition that the nature of work and duties of electrician, working in the Office of District Magistrate/Collector, Pithoragarh are similar to those of other electricians/tube well operators working in other Departments like P.W.D., Irrigation, Medical and Health Departments. The Uttar Pradesh Government vide G.O. dated 22.02.1990 has revised the pay scale of tube well operator working in the Irrigation Department to Rs. 950-1500/-. Similarly, Government of U.P. vide G.O. dated 28.04.1990 has revised the pay scale of electrician working in Medical, Health and Family Departments as 950-1500/-. Likewise, the electricians working in the P.W.D. are also getting the benefit of same pay scale. The grievance of the petitioner is that he being qualified electrician, however, is not given the revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- in spite of the several representations made by him to the Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue, Lucknow as well as Government of U.P. The petitioner has therefore, filed this writ petition for grant of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner moved an amendment application stating therein that in Uttaranchal there is no Board of Revenue. Hence the petitioner be permitted to implead the State of Uttaranchal through Chief Secretary, Uttaranchal Secretariat, Dehradun and Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Dehradun as respondent No. 4 and 5, in the writ petition. The application was allowed and the respondent No. 4 and 5 were impleaded in the memo of petition. 3 Learned standing counsel accepted notices on behalf of respondent No. 4 and 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has filed the letter dated 26.11.1990 issued by the Commissioner/Secretary Board of Revenue, U.P. directing the District Magistrate of Uttar Pradesh to refer the matter relating to higher pay scale of the electrician to the Board. The letter dated 26.11.1990 which has been annexed as annexure 7 to the writ petition is re-produced as follows:- ^^izs"kd] vk;qDr ,oa lfpo jktLo ifj"kn m0iz0 vuqHkkx&12 y[kuÅA lsok esa] leLr e.Myk;qDr leLr ftykf/kdkjh mRrj izns’kA la[;k th&644 @12&20¼,½¼90½ fnukad 26@11@1990 fo"k; % izns’k ds dyDVªsV esa dk;Zjr V;wcosy vkijsVj de bysDVªhf’k;u dk osru eku 825&1200 dks iqufjf{kr djds # 950&1500 fn;s tkus ds lEca/k esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;d jktLo vuqHkkx&4 ds ‘’kklukns’k la[;k 2818@1&4@90&36 oh4@89] fnukad 23@06@90 ,oa izslhMSaV jkT; deZpkjh la;qDr ifj"kn m0iz0 y[kuÅ ds i= fnukad 27@3@90 dh izfrfyfi izsf"kr djrs gq, eq>s ;g djus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd ;fn dysDVsªV esa dk;Zjr V;wcosy vkijsVj de bysDVªhf’k;u dks mPp osrueku dk vkSfpR; gks rks iw.kZ vkSfpR; ds lkFk eq[; lfpo dh v/;{krk esa xfRr lfefr dks lanfHkZr djus gsrq ifj"kn dks Hkstus dh d`ik djsaA layXud% mijksDrkuqlkj Hkonh;k ¼nhfidk nqXxy½ la;qDr lfpo d`rs vk;qDr ,oa lfpo 4 la[;k ,oa fnukad mijksDrkuqlkj izfrfyfi la;qDr lfpo] m0iz0 'kklu jktLo vuqHkkx&4 y[kuÅ dks 'kklukns’k la0 2818@1&4@95&36 oh&4&89 fnukad 23@6@90 ds lanHkZ esa lwpukFkZ iszf"krA fuxZerk ds fy, izkf/kd`rA glrk0m0iz0 vkKk ls@& lgk;d v/kh{kd ¼nhfidk nqXXky½ vuqHkkx & 12 la;qDr lfpo d`rs vk;qDr ,oa lfpoA** It would further be pertinent to mention here that the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh in compliance of the order dated 26.11.1990 recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. The copy of the letter sent by the District magistrate to Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue, Lucknow (U.P.) dated 08.01.1991 which has been annexed as annexure 8 to the writ petition is reproduced as follow:- ** izs"kd ftykf/kdkjh fiFkksjkx<+A lsok esa] vk;qDr ,oa lfpo jktLo ifj"kn m0iz0A vuqHkkx & 12] y[kuÅA la[;k 360@uoe 51@iz0uk0 fnukad tuojh 8] 1991 fo"k;% izns'k ds dysDVªsV esa dk;Zjr V;wccsy vkijsVj de bysDVªhf'k;u dk osrueku 825&1200 dks iwujhf{kr djds 950&1500 fn;s tkus ds lEca/k esaA egksn;] d`Ik;k mijksDr fo’k;d ifj"knkns'k la[;k th&644@12&201 ,@87 ¼90½ fnukad 26@11@1990 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA bl lEc/k esa ifj"kn dks ;g voxr djkuk gS fd bl tuin esa ds fy, bysDVªhf'k;u ,d in Lohd`r gSA bl in ij dk;Zjr deZpkjh dks prqFkZ Js.kh ds deZpkjh dk osrueku vuqeU; gSA bysDVªhf'k;u dk dk;Z prqFkZ Js.kh ds dk;Z 5 ls ,dne fHkUu gS vkSj bl in ij dk;Zjr deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr ,d fof'k"V izf'k{k.k] ftldh izf'k{k.k vof/k 2 o"kZ dh gksrh gS tks vkS|kfxd ds izf'k{k.k laLFkku ds }kjk nh tkrh gS] ls gksrh gSA bysDVªhf'k;u ds izf'k{k.k gsrq U;wure 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk m0iz0 ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn dh gkbZLdwy ifj{kk foKku oxZ ls mRrh.kZ gksuk okaNuh; gSA bl izdkj ls bysDVªhf'k;u ,d izf'kf{kr rduhdh deZpkjh gS] tks prqFkZ Js.kh ds deZpkjh ls lHkh izdkj ls fHkUu gSA bl lEc/ka esa ifj"kn dks ;g Hkh voxr djkuk gS fd 'kklukns'k la[;k 519@90¼27½&fl&8&49v@89] fnukad 22 Qjojh 1990 ds }kjk lerk lfefr m0iz0 1989 dh laLrqfr;ksa ij fy;s x;s fu.kZ;kuqlkj flpkabZ foHkkx esa dk;Zjr V;wccsy vkijsVj ¼uydwi pkyd½ dks 950&20&1150 n0jk0 259 1500 dk osrueku vuqeU; fd;k x;k gSa pqafd uydwi pkyd ,oa bysDVªhf'k;u dk dk;Z ,d gh leku gS vkSj ioZrh; {ks= esa uydwi pkyd ds LFkku ij bysDVªhf'k;u fu;qDr gS] vr% bUgsa Hkh mDr osrueku 950&1500 dk fn;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA vr% ifj"kn ls vuqjks/k gS fd ftyk dk;kZy; esa fu;qDr byDVªhf'k;u dks mDr of.kZr ifj"knkns'k fnukad 22 Qjojh 1990 ds }kjk flapkbZ foHkkx esa dk;Zjr uydwi pkykdksa dks vuqeU; osrueku 950&1500 :0 ds vuq:Ik gh osrueku Lohd`r fd;s tkus dh lcy laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA lqyHk lanHkZ gsrq mDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 22@02@90 dh izfrfyfi layXu dj izsf"kr dh tk jgh gSA Hkonh; izHkkjh vf/kdkjh o`rs ftykf/kdkjh] fiFkSjkx<+ la[;k 360@uoe 51@ iz0u0rn~fnukadA izfrfyfi la;qDr lfpo m0iz0 'kklu] jktLo vuqHkkx&4 y[kuÅA 2& izfrfyfi vk;qDr dek;wa e.My uSuhrkyA gLrk0vi0 izHkkjh vf/kdkjh d`rs ftykf/kdkjh] fiFkkSjkx<+** Further, the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh again sent reminder to the Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue, Lucknow by means of D.O. letter dated 06.09.1993 requesting therein to sanction pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- as is admissible to the electrician working in other 6 Departments. The letter dated 06.09.1993 which has been annexed as annexure 9 to the writ petition is reproduced as follows:- **vk'kk0i=0la0 171@uoe~&51 (90”91) ftykf/kdkjh] fiFkkSjkx<+ fnukad flrEcj 6@9@93 d`i;k esjs dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k 1515@uoe~ (90”91) fnukad vxLr 7] 1993 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA 'kklukns'k la[;k 3889@1&4@81&26@ch@81 fnukad 14@10@81 ds }kjk V;wccsy vkijsVj de bysfDVªf'k;u ds inksa dk l`tu ftyk dk;kZy;ksa ds iz;kstu gsrq fd;k x;k FkkA 'kklukns'k l0 3185@&1&4@86&26ch&4@81jk&4 fnukad 5 vxLr 1986 ds }kjk fnukad 1 tqykbZ 1986 ls bu inksa dks LFkk;h ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA V;wccsy vkijsVj de bysfDVªf'k;u ds osrueku 825&1200 dk gSA ftyk dk;kZy; esa fu;qDr bysfDVªf'k;u ds }kjk 'kklukns'k la[;k 519@90¼27½lh&4&48v@89 fnukad 22@2@90 ds }kjk lerk lfefr m0iz0 1989 dh laLrqfr;ksa ij fn;s x;s fu.kZ;kuqlkj flapkbZ foHkkx esa dk;Zjr n;wccsy vkijsVj ¼uydwi pkyd½ dks ns; osrueku :0 950&1500 n0jks025&1500 dk fn;s tkus gsrq le; le; ij fuosnu fd;k tk jgk gSA fpfdRlk vuqHkkx&8 ds 'kklukns'k la[;k&784@5&8&90 fel 31&90 fel31&89 fnukad 28 vizSy 1990 ds }kjk LokLF; foHkkx esa dk;Zjr bysfDVªf'k;u dk osrueku Hkh : 950&1500 dk vuqeU; djk;k x;k gSA blh vk/kkj ij ftyk dk;kZy; esa fu;qDr bysfDVªf'k;u ds }kjk Hkh viuk osrueku 825&1200 ls iqujhf{kr djds :0 950&1500 fd;s tkus gsrq fuosnu fd;k tk jgk gSA ftykdk;kZy; esa fu;qDr bysfDVªf'ku vkS|kfxd izf'kf{k.k laLFkku ls 2 o"kZ dk izf'k{k.k izkIr gSA vr% esjk vkils fuosnu gS fd ftyk dk;kZy; esa fu;qDr bysfDVªf'k;u tks fofgr 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk bysfDVªf'k;u ds in ds /kkjd gS] dks :0 950&20&1150&n0jks0&8&25&1500 dk osrueku 'kklukns'k la0 519@90 ¼27½ lh&4&48v@89 fnukad 22 Qjojh 1990 ds vuqlkj vuqeU; djks gsrq vko”;d ifj"knkns'k izlkfjr djus dh d`ik djsa Jhjkedqekj vk;qDr ,oa lfpo jktLo ifj"kn m0iz0 glr0vi0 vuqHkkx&12 y[kuÅA ¼Mk0 vuwi ik.Ms;½ ”] 7 After having perused the aforesaid correspondence made by the District Magistrate to the Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue, Lucknow as well as the direction issued by Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue to all the District Magistrate in this regard, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner requires a deep and positive consideration. The counter affidavit which has been filed by the respondent No. 1 to 3 shows that averments made by the petitioner in the petition are admitted and this fact and it has specially been admitted that the pay scale of electrician/tube well operator working in other Department has been revised to 950-1500/- vide Government Order. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the representation by the petitioner is still pending and has not been decided as yet. It is also not disputed that the matter of petitioner has already been recommended by the than District Magistrate vide letter dated 08.01.1991 and 06.09.1993. In view of the circumstances narrated above as well as in the light of the letters/correspondence between the authorities concerned with regard to the benefits of the revised pay scale to be accorded to the petitioner, I think, it would be just and proper that the petitioner should file a fresh representation before the respondents No. 4 and 5 within a period of 15 days who shall decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the letters which have been quoted in the body of the judgment within a period of one month from the date of production of representation by passing speaking and reasoned order. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. B.C. Kandpal, J.) 21.06.2005 ASWAL