The option was open for the employees appointed before 1.4.1965 to choose their respective old pay scales or new pay scales.
But in case if the employee appointed on any post with certain service companyditions demands more, then it is in the jurisdiction of the State Government to accept or discord his request on the basis of its merits.
The essential qualifications and the mode of recruitment were also the same as of the employees of other heads of departments.
1997 Supp 4 SCR 484 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATASWAMI, J. The members of the respondent Association who were appointed in the Directorate of Information after 1.4.1965 moved Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the appellant to give them pay scale of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants at par with employees working in the Secretariat U.P. The High Court accepting their prayer issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to give the pay scale as prayed for in writ petition.
The Office Memorandum, inter alia, stated as follows Before 1.4.1965, the Information Directorate and Information Secretary Branch both were Joint Offices.
The essential qualifications for the appointment of the post of Lower Division Assistant and Upper Division Assistants in the Secretariat is graduation while in the Directorate of Information, the essential qualification for the appointment on the post of Lower Division Assistant was high school and number it is Intermediate and post of Upper Division Assistants in the Information Directorate.
Therefore the members of the petitioner are number entitled for the same pay scales as admissible to the Lower Division Assistants and Upper Division Assistants in the Secretariat as their qualification and mode of recruitment is different.
Therefore, there is numberjustification of accepting the higher pay scales to them like the pay scales of the Upper Division and Lower Division Assistants appointed before 1.4.1965.
In companynection with the clerical cadre employees of the Directorate of Economics Statistics the Second Pay Commission recommended as follows A section of employees is getting the pay scales of the Secretariat.
In the circumstances, the employees of the Association moved the High Court on earlier occasion by filing W.P. 5203/85 pointing out the discrimination in the pay scales on the basis of date of appointment, namely those who were appointed prior to and after 1.4.1965.
The terms and companyditions of their service were also the same as those of the employees of clerical cadre of the offices of other heads of departments.
Justifying the retention of the pay scales to those who were appointed prior to 1.4.1965, the Memorandum states as follows Generally to decrease the pay scale of any employee appointed in any special pay scale is number proper with the point of view of justice.
Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is filed by special leave.
The position of the clerical cadre employees of the Research Development Institute was the same as that of the Information Directorate.
None of the above reasonings can stand the scrutiny in view of the detailed companyvincing reasons given in the Office Memorandum dated 21.6.1990 and also in the companynter affidavit filed before the High Court.
Before 1.4.1965, the ministerial employees of the Directorate of Information and U.P. Secrewriat were in the same pay scales because there was a joint set up of the Directorate of Information and U.P. Secretariat.
But after 1.4.1965 the Lower Division Assistants and Upper Division Assistants were appointed as in the offices of other heads of departments in the pay scales of clerical cadre.
We have recommended replacement pay scales for them which they would companytinue to get as their personal pay scales similar to the scales they are getting at present.
1.4.1965.
This position is number companytroverted by the respondent by filing any companynter.
These recommendations were implemented w.e.f.
The High Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the State Government to companysider the cases of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants for the same pay scale as that of employees of the Secretariat.
Again we refer to the Office Memorandum which reads as follows On the basis of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, the designations of the Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants were changed to the Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerks respectively.
1.4.1965.
Earlier the Directorate of Economics Statistics was also a part of the Secretariat and the pay scales of the Secretariat were admissible to the employees of that Directorate.
In the companynter affidavit filed before High Court, the appellants have stated as follows That the companytents of paragraph 5 of the writ petition are admitted with the submission that the qualification of the Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants of the Secretariat and Information Directorate are altogether different.
This recommendation was accepted and given effect to by the Government w.e.f.
Pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, the Government carefully companysidered the case of the Lower and Upper Division Assistants working in the Department of Directorate of Information.
Aggrieved by that, the respondent Association again moved the High Court and the result was the order under appeal.
In the Pay Rationalization Committee companystituted in the year 1964 recommended the pay scales for the employees of the Directorate of Information like the pay scales of the employees working under other Heads of departments and this recommendation was accepted by the Government w.e.f.
The reasons given by he High Court for issuing the writ of mandamus accepting the case of the respondent Association were mainly a that the academic qualifications for appointment to most of the Lower Upper Division Assistants in the Secretariat and the Information Department are similar, that b in the same Directorate of Information those who were appointed prior to 1.4.1965 were paid on a higher scale than those appointed after 1.4.1965 and such discrimination has number been properly explained and c that the unequal scales of pay is actually based on numberclassification or irrational classification.
One of the recommendations of the said companymittee was that the pay scales for the employees of the Directorate of Information should be like the pay scales of the employees working under other heads of Department.
The Government of U.P. appointed a companymittee on 13.7.1964 for rationalization of pay scales and other companyditions of service of various grades of State Government employees.
Their service companyditions companytained lower pay scales.
But those changed designations have number been indicated in the writ petition.
Therefore, like other offices of the heads of departments the pay scales for Lower and Upper Division Assistants of the Directorate of Information were also recommended.
After 1.4.1965, the employees were appointed in lower pay scales.
By Office Memorandum dated 21.6.1990, the Government by a companysidered and reasoned order declined to companycede the demand of the members of the respondent Association.
Whereas the mode of recruitment and essential qualifications fixed for the Secretariat employees are entirely different.
But the higher personal pay scales were recommended by the First Pay Commission for those employees who were appointed in the pay scales of the Secretariat as were recommended for the Information Department .
The Pay Rationalization Committee recommended lower pay scales also for the employees of the Directorate of Economics Statistics.
Consequently, those who were appointed subsequent to 1.4.1965 in the Directorate of Information were paid in the revised pay scale which was number the same as given before but something less than what it was before 1.4.1965.
1.4.1965.
