Pawan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors
2008 Latest Caselaw 2038 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
10.

+                      W.P. (C) No. 3958/1998

%                               DATE OF DECISION :19th November, 2008

PAWAN KUMAR                                     .... Petitioner
                            Through:            None.

                       Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                            ..... Respondents
                   Through:                     Mr. Amitesh Kumar,
                                                Advocate for Respondents
                                                No. 2 and 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?    No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                                  No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?                  No.


                            JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN J: (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus to revise petitioner's

pay scale on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and on the

ground of parity of pay scale with Stenographers (Assistant) employed in

Central Universities under University Grants Commission following the

5th Pay Commission's Report.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent UGC, submitted that initially a

number of writ petitions were allowed by various learned Single Judges of

this Court; however, on Letters Patent Appeals being filed, the judgment

of the learned Single Judges allowing various writ petitions had been set

aside. In this context he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court

reported in Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanghathan Vs. Kendriya Vidhyalaya

Sanghathan Staff Association.

3. Since according to the respondents the controversy raised in the

present writ petition is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this

Court, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

Division Bench judgment.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J th November 19 , 2008 sb