CWP(T) No. 7405/2008 10.11.2010 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. Rajan Kahol, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Petitioner confines his petition to prayer (v) only which is reproduced as under: (v) That the Respondent Corporation may be directed to give the pay scale of Rs.3330-6200 to the applicant w.e.f. July 1999 alongwith arrears till realisation forthwith. 2. Facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that petitioner was working as a Head Waiter w.e.f. 6.9.1997. Prior to 1986, respondent-Corporation fixed the scale of Head Waiter equivalent to that of Captain in the scale of `.950-1800. Same was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to `.3120-5160. However in July 1999 pay-scale of Captain was revised to `.3330-6200 and the pay scale of Head Waiter kept in the pre-revised scale of `.3120-5160 only. Petitioner is claiming pay scale given to the Captain. It is also not in dispute, as is evident from Annexure R-1, that posts of Captain and Head Waiter are interchangeable. Petition is opposed by the respondents only on the ground that petitioner belongs to the category of Head Waiter, hence is not entitled for the revised pay-scale given to the category of Captain/Barman. 3. While dealing with almost an identical situation the Apex Court in STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS vs. U. P. SALES TAX OFFICERS GRADE II ASSOCIATION (2003)6 SCC 250 has held as under:- “13. The High Court has also gone into the question as to whether the Trade Tax Officers can be dealt differently from the District Level Officers. The Pay Commission did consider the cases of Trade Tax Officers in the Tax Department distinctly from District Level Officers in other departments of the State Government but for both the Officers in pre-revised scale of Rs. 400-750/- the Commission recommended revised scale of Rs. 625-1170/-. Thereafter, the Government Resolution granted pay scale of Rs.625-1240/- to the officers in pre-revised scale of Rs. 400-750/-. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Government, all Officers either in the Tax Department or in other departments, carrying pre-revised scale of Rs. 400-750/- were required to be granted revised scale of Rs. 625-1240/- and no discrimination inter se between them could be made on the basis of the report of the Pay Commission. The High Court has examined the nature of duties and functions of Trade Tax Officers. The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Trade Tax Officers exercise administrative and quasi-judicial functions both within the District and sometimes outside and can, in that sense, be treated as District Level Officers at par with District Level Officers in other departments. The importance of their role and their significant contribution, functionally in the administrative hierarchy cannot in any manner be belittled even vis-a-vis the others appreciated by the Commission or ultimately considered for better treatment even by the Government, in the process of implementation of the report of the Commission. It appears that the Resolution of the Government dated 29-12-1981 and particularly its relevant part quoted above, makes no distinction between the officers carrying pre-revised scale of Rs. 400-750/- in the Tax Department as well as in other departments. In effect, the implementation of the Resolution of the Government seems to be discriminatory and the rightly been interferred with by the High Court by directing the State Government to grant revised pay scale of Rs. 690-1420/- to Trade Tax Officers at par with District Level Officers who carried same pre-revised scale of pay.” 4. In the case of petitioner also the respondents have not made any distinction. The duties are interchangeable. Consequently keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court, it is held that petitioner cannot be discriminated and is entitled to the same pay scale of `.3330-6200 w.e.f. July 1999. Respondents are directed to take consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. November 10, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.