Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46117 of 2011 Petitioner :- Shiv Sewak Srivastava And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K.Tiwari,Arvind Kumar Verma,Fareeduddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the order dated 14.6.2010 whereby their claim for grant of pay equal to Work Agent has been rejected.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that all the petitioners are working as Mate (mentioned as Meth in the writ petition) under the respondents in the Public Works Department at different places. They are claiming equivalence of pay equal to that being paid to Work Agent in terms of the judgement of the learned Single Judge of this court dated 13.9.2005 passed in Writ petition no. 3932(S/S) of 2004 (Ram Narayan Srivastava and others Vs State of U.P. and others) along with other connected writ petitions. In that case and other connected cases, this court had directed that the petitioners therein were entitled to draw their salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 w.e.f. pay scales being implemented in the State of U.P. and Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996. Against the said judgment, the State filed Special appeal no. 57 of 2006 and the Division Bench of this court by judgment dated 18.12.2008 set aside the jugement and order of the learned Single judge. Aggrieved, the petitioners therein then filed SLP no. 6062-6065 of 2009 (Sunder Lal and others Vs Secretary, Public Works Department, U.P.) in which the Supreme Court directed that in the meantime there shall be stay of operation of the impugned order. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that since the Supreme Court has stayed the judgement of the Division Bench, the judgment and order of the learned Single judge stands revived and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for grant of pay and other benefits equal to that being paid to a Work Agent.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents bringing on record a Government Order dated 16.11.2011 showing the scales of pay to the different staff working in the Public Works Department. This Government Order has been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit dated 3.3.2012. The learned standing counsel has, referring to the said G.O., submitted that the scale of pay of Mate and Work Agent both is Rs. 5200- 20200 but the grade pay granted to a Mate is Rs. 1900/- whereas that granted to Work agent is Rs. 2400/-. He further submitted that the post of Mate is a promotional post from that of the post of Beldar and a person eligible seeking promotion to the post of Mate must have worked on the post of Beldar for at least five years and further that the promotion is based on seniority. He further submitted that it is only in a case where suitable candidates are not found and vacancies are available that the government may resort to direct recruitment. He also submitted that the educational qualification required for the post of Mate is High School with two years of working experience in that field. He submitted that on the other hand the post of Work Agent is filled by direct recruitment through the process of open selection and the education qualification for the said post is High School, 10+2 or equivalent thereto with a two year ITI diploma certificate in the trade of surveyor/technical trade with five years of working experience. His submission, therefore, is that it is not merely the equivalence of the scale of pay which is relevant for consideration but what is to be examined is the nature of work as well as eligibility criteria required for the particular post which will determine whether equivalence can be granted or not. In that context, he submits that equivalence cannot be granted to a Mate in the matter of salary equivalent to that of a Work Agent as their nature of engagement in service as well as their educational qualification as well as their working experience is totally different. He submits that education qualification demanded for the post of Work Agent itself indicates that nature of Work Agent is of a technical nature unlike that of Mate.
The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, referred to the report of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Fatehpur dated 13.7.2006, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit in which the Executive Officer has mentioned that nature of work of a Work Agent is not supervisory and he does not supervise the work of Lift Operator or Mate or Wireman. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the nature of work of the Work Agent is not supervisory and he does not supervise the work of Mate, therefore, his work and that of Mate are equivalent and when the nature of work is equivalent, the salary of the two classes of post should also be the same.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived for the reason that in the report dated 13.7.2006, the Executive Engineer was not considering the matter of equivalence between the Work Agent and Mate but rather he was considering the equivalence between a Work Agent and a Junior Engineer and it is not that he stated that Work Agent does not supervise the work of Lift Operator, Mate or Wireman and that supervisory work is performed by the Junior Engineer. In fact in that report the Executive Engineer has not examined the nature of recruitment to the post of Mate or of Work Agent nor has he considered the educational qualifications or work experience required for the post of Mate or of Work Agent. Therefore, any observation made by the Executive Officer in his report dated 13.7.2006 cannot be determinative of the claim of the petitioner for equivalence in pay scale of salary between Mate and Work Agent.
So far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Ram Narayan Srivastava (supra) is concerned, all the petitioners therein were working as Work Agent and their grievance was that they were being treated equivalent to Mate which is a subordinate post being supervised by Work Agent and, therefore, there can be no equivalence between the Work Agent and Mate. Their claim further was that work, duties and functions of Work Agent are similar and identical to that of Junior Engineer and that there is no other post in between a Junior Engineer and a Work Agent. The learned Single Judge also referred to a notification of the Chief Engineer contained in his letter of February 22, 1990 and another letter dated 4.12.1993 wherein he had recommended grant of higher pay scale to the Work Agent and the reason given was that the Work Agent were discharging the duties of supervisory nature and exercising control over the post like Wireman, Lift Operator, Mate, etc., and it was in that context that the petitioners of that bunch of writ petitions had claimed parity with Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs. 4000- 6000 as revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and accepting the claim of the petitioners therein this court had allowed the bunch of writ petitions by its judgement dated 13.9.2005.
In the report of the Executive Engineer dated 13.7.2006, there is no reference to the recommendations of the Chief Engineer dated February 22,1990 or his letter dated 4.12.1993 and therefore, any observation made by the Executive Engineer in his report dated 13.7.2006 cannot be referred to as accurate. From the analysis of the above facts what emerges is that though the scale of pay of Mate and that of Work Agent is same being Rs. 5200-20200 but their nature of recruitment in service as well as the work experience required is totally different and therefore, their grade pay is different. So far as Mate is concerned, the said post is a promotional post from that of Beldar out of candidates having five years of service as Beldar and promotion is made on the basis of seniority. It is only if, eligible candidates are not available that the Government may resort to direct recruitment. The eligibility criteria for appointment also is High School with two years of experience in the particular field.
So far as Work Agent is concerned, this post is a selection post based on direct recruitment and the educational qualification prescribed his High School (10+2) with a two year ITI certificate in the Surveyor/Technical trade and a five year working experience in the requisite trade. Considering all these factors, it cannot be held that the post of Mate be considered as equivalent to that of Work Agent for purposes of fixation of salary.
For reasons stated above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Kirti