Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

vi. To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.

2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein is working with the Government Polytechnic College Mandla, Distt. Mandla. The petitioner was initially appointed on 05.01.2006 against the post of Workshop Instructor in the scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner is getting the same pay scale.

3. It is contended by the counsel that the factum regarding revision of pay scale in respect of Workshop Instructor was taken by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.83/1992. Vide order dated 24.03.1998, the pay scale of Workshop Instructor was revised. Similarly situated employees, i.e. respondent no.6 and 7 were extended the benefits vide order dated 15.06.1998 and 28.04.2007 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner who was also entitled for similar benefit, moved a representation but the same was not considered. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. No.5233/2015 (Annexure P/5) and this Court directed the respondents to take decision on the petitioner's representation. The representation of the petitioner has been turned down vide order dated 08.07.2015 contained in Annexure P/6. Thus, assailing the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming benefits as prayed for in the relief clause.

5. It is contended by the counsel that the report of the said committee has been brought on the record as Annexure R/4. On perusal of Annexure R/4 reflects that the Committee nowhere denied the benefit of pay scale to Workshop Instructor employed with Government College. Thus, it is contended that the fundamental right of the petitioner is enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, are being violated as the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination by not extending the benefit which is already been extended to other similarly situated employees. Thus, counsel submitted that the impugned order be quashed and the benefits as prayed for be granted.

7. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record.

8. The petitioner, who was appointed as workshop Instructor, vide order dated 05.01.2006 (Annexure P/1) conferred with the benefit of Rs.4000- 100-6000. The similarly situated Workshop Instructor namely Shri C.K. Mallik was extended the benefit of Rs.4500-9000 vide order dated 15.06.1998 which has been brought on record as Annexure P/4. The benefit of revise pay scale was extended to Shri C.K. Mallik, in terms of memorandum of the Finance Department, Bhopal in order dated 24.03.1998 as Annexure P/3. Therefore, the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing as of the case of Shri C.K. Mallik who was extended the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.4500-100-9000. On perusal of recommendation of Brahmswaroop Committee which is brought on record as Annexure R/4, the same nowhere deprives the Workshop Instructor who are employed with the Government Polytechnic College as regards the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 4500-100-9000. The claim of the petitioner could not have been declined under the misconception that the Committee has declined the said benefit vide its recommendation which are incorporated in Annexure R/4 dated 05.10.2006.