IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9640 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KERALA P.W.D. GRADUATE ENGINEERS; ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, ROADS DIVISION CAMPUS, P.M.G.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FINANCE), DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PAY REVISION COMMISSION 2005 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. CHIEF ENGINEER, ADMINISTRATION, P.W.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).9640/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, the PWD graduate Engineers' Association, has approached this Court aggrieved by the stand taken by the Government as evidenced by Ext.P9, by which the request made by the Association essentially for parity with that of doctors, who enter service in the Health Services Department or Medical Education Department, has been rejected. Apparently, petitioner, Association, had brought these facts to the notice of the Vth Pay Commission and the Pay Revision Commission had made certain recommendations in the matter of revision of scales of pay of Graduate Engineers as well. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an expert body ought to have been constituted to specifically look into the grievance highlighted by the petitioner. But that was not done. In considering the request made by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, sufficient attention has not been paid to the specific factors pleaded W.P.(C).9640/2008 2 by the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner submits. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.Haridas and the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.Manoj Kumar. 4. Ext.P9 is the communication issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to the petitioner, Association, dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner. Relevant portion of the same reads as follows:- The VIIIth PRC was a Committee constituted by Government to study the various service conditions of State Government Employees and Teachers. After a detailed study, the Committee submitted its report to Government, based on which Government have issued orders vide G.O.(P).No.145/2006/Fin. dated 25.3.2006. Hence the request in the petition to appoint an expert committee to study the matter relating to Assistant W.P.(C).9640/2008 3 Engineers cannot be considered. While recommending pay scales, various aspects like duties and responsibilities of various posts were taken into account by the PRC. As such based on the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee, the scale of pay of Assistant Engineers and MBBS Doctors have been fixed at the entry level. Moreover the posts of Assistant Engineers and MBBS/BDS Doctors cannot be compared on the basis of duties and responsibilities attached to the above posts, the Assistant Engineers are in a better position compared to their counterparts in other Departments like Agriculture, Animal husbandry, Soil Conservation etc. One third posts of Assistant Executive Engineers and 25% posts of Executive Engineers in the PWD are in the Higher Grade posts on higher scales of pay, which are not available in other Departments. Hence your request to enhance the scale of pay of Assistant Executive Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant Executive Engineers (HG), Executive Engineers (HG) and allow time bound W.P.(C).9640/2008 4 higher grade promotions to Assistant Engineer as admissible to MBBS Doctors/Dental Surgeons cannot be considered. The doctors are granted various allowances considering the special arduous nature of their work. Hence your request to grant allowances as admissible to Doctors cannot be considered. 5. Two aspects seem to be highlighted in Ext.P9. Firstly, it is pointed out that doctors are granted various allowances considering the special arduous nature of their work and therefore, Engineers cannot claim parity with the doctors. Reasoning cannot be considered as fallacious. Obviously the nature of work discharged by the doctors of the Government Hospitals are arduous and if special allowances are afforded in their favour, Engineers cannot claim parity with the doctors on the same footing. 6. The second aspect mentioned in Ext.P9 highlights W.P.(C).9640/2008 5 the fact that one-third of the vacancies of Assistant Executive Engineers and 25% of Executive Engineers in the PWD are given Higher Grade with higher scales of pay. These are not available in other departments. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is parity between Engineers and Doctors in the Central Government or in Departments which are governed by the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. I do not find any materials to specifically substantiate this contention. But assuming it to be true, the same will not have any particular application in so far as the State is concerned which will not be bound thereby. Nor is it such a crucial factor, non consideration of which would vitiate the decision taken by the Government, while dealing with the request made by the petitioner Association, for parity of pay with the doctors in the Health Services. 8. In the circumstances, I do not find my way to W.P.(C).9640/2008 6 interfere with Ext.P9. But it is made clear that Ext.P9 by itself will not stand in the way of the petitioner Association, bringing to the notice of the next Pay Revision Commission any factors relevant for fixing their scale of pay or claiming parity of pay with the doctors in the Health Services Department or Medical Education Department as the case may be. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs