JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)HEARD Mr. Vijay Nangesh, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Neeraj Soni, learned AGP for the State Authorities.
(2.)LEARNED advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Tracer -cum -Clerk in the year starting from 1975
in the pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 then prevailing. It is the case of the
petitioners that they ought to have been given the separate seniority as
Tracer and even their pay at the time of revision of pay on 01.01.986
ought to have been in the pay -scale of Rs.1150 -1500. It is also contended
that the next promotion of the petitioners ought to have been in the
channel of Assistant Draftsman, Draftsman and Head Draftsman, since in
other departments, for Tracers this is the channel of promotion, and the
pay -scales are also on higher side. It is also contended that the
petitioners, though appointed by the name Tracer -cum -Clerk, are doing the
work as Tracers only and under these circumstances, the petitioners ought
to be assigned that pay -scale and even separate seniority and their
promotion should be on the posts as mentioned above.
Learned AGP Mr. Soni has referred to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents State Authorities along with the statement
annexed thereto and has contended that in effect the petitioners want
their original appointment be changed retrospectively, which Government
cannot accept. It is therefore contended that the petition be dismissed.
(3.)HAVING heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record, I find that the petitioners were appointed as
Tracer -cum -Clerk in the pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 then prevailing. Even on
the basis of the statement annexed with the affidavit in reply, it
transpires that their further promotion was as Senior Clerk and Head
Clerk. The grievance of the petitioners that they ought to have been
given the pay -scale of Rs.1150 -1500 as on 01.01.1986, cannot be accepted
since in the revision of pay effective from 01.01.1986, the pre -revised
pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 is revised to Rs.950 -1500. It is not in dispute
that all the petitioners are granted revision of pay on 01.01.1986 in the
pay -scale of Rs.950 -1500, which is the corresponding revised pay. The
claim of the petitioners is that the revised pay on 01.01.1986 ought to
have been in the pay -scale of Rs.1150 -1500 instead of Rs.950 -1500. It
would mean that in effect the petitioners want that their appointment
ought to have been treated not in the pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 but in the
higher pay -scale. The petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge their
appointment, on the ground that even the designation ought to have been
referred different and they ought to have been given pay -scale of that
designation, on which they are not appointed. Comparison is made by the
petitioner with the Tracers of other departments but that would not take
their case further since the petitioners were appointed by Agriculture
Department on the post of Tracer -cum -Clerk in the pay -scale of
Rs.260 -400. Thus, this contention stands rejected. So far the nature of
work is concerned, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India cannot take into consideration what exactly is
the nature of work performed and what can be the pay -scale for that.
Consistently, the post of Tracer -cum -Clerk in the Agriculture Department
is treated in pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 then prevailing, with appropriate
revision from time to time. Under these circumstances, I do not find any
force in the petition and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.