Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Sushil Kumar Gautam And 16 Others on 31 March, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 288 of 2022
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Sushil Kumar Gautam And 16 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- B.S. Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-appellants and Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents/ writ petitioners.
This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the benefit of the Government Order dated 16.11.2011 has been extended to the writ petitioners noticing that the benefit accorded to the employees of the Public Works Department are extendable to the employees of Irrigation Department of the State Government, inasmuch as, it is not open for the Court to make any distinction/ by any reasonable classification between two sets of employees of the Department of the State. It was opined by the learned Single Judge that it is the bounden duty of the State to treat two similarly situated employees equally and in case of any discrimination, the action of the State would frustrate the object of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No argument could be extended by learned Standing Counsel to assail the aforesaid findings returned by the learned Single Judge on the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further noted by the learned Single Judge that the demand of the employees of the Irrigation Department had not been adverted to by the State for a long time though the recommendation was made by the Engineer-in-Chief to the Deputy Secretary, Irrigation Department as early as in the year 2016.
It was further noted that there was no justification not to extend the benefit of Grade-pay of Rs.1900/- to the writ petitioners, who worked as 'Mate' in the Irrigation Department, when the said benefit had been extended to 'Mate' of the Public Works Department. The nature of the duties performed by both the sets of employees of two departments of the State, though it appears to be different, but are one and the same.
No submission could be made by the learned Standing Counsel to assail the said finding of similarity in the nature of job and duties performed by the 'Mate' of Irrigation Department with that of 'Mate' of the Public Works Department.
Only submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that the benefit of the Government Order dated 16.11.2011 was extendable to the employees working only on technical posts in the Public Works Department. To examine the said submission, we have gone through the Government Order dated 16.11.2011, which was issued for determination of the Grade-pay of the employees of junior class posts of 23 categories of the Public Works Department. It is evident that the Grade-pay for the post 'Mate' had been revised therein from Rs.1800/- to Rs.1900/-.
The contention that the enhancement of Grade-pay was only confined for the technical post, therefore, cannot be sustained.
No other argument could be pressed, apart from the further contention that the claim of similarly situated employees had been turned down by the State Government, earlier.
Be that as it may, having gone through the order impugned in view of the stand of the petitioners in the writ petition and the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the decision of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.3.2023
N.S.Rathour
