Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Daily-wager in the Power Development Department in 1977 and regularized as an Executive Helper in 1985
Source reference: p. 2He subsequently served as an Installation Surveyor/Inspector and Technician-III, retiring on April 30, 2013
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner alleged that despite possessing the requisite qualifications (Matriculation with an ITI Diploma) and holding specialized posts, the respondents failed to grant him the upgraded pay scales prescribed under SRO-149 of 1973 (J&K Civil Service Revised Pay Rules 1973)
Source reference: p. 2-3He further asserted that similarly situated employees in other departments had received these benefits following a judgment by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K (Jammu Wing) which quashed an order that had previously kept the SRO in abeyance
Source reference: p. 4Having received no decision on his prior representations to the authorities, he approached the Tribunal for relief
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of upgraded pay scales under SRO-149 of 1973 on the same analogy as similarly situated employees
Source reference: p. 2/para. 012. Whether the respondents' failure to decide on the petitioner’s representations regarding pay revision constitutes an arbitrary denial of benefits under Article 14 of the Constitution
Source reference: p. 4/para. 04Law Applied
J&K Civil Service Revised Pay Rules 1973 (SRO-149 of 1973), which provides for higher pay grades for employees with Matriculation and a two-year ITI Diploma in relevant trades
Source reference: p. 3Parity and Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, noting previous precedents from the Hon’ble High Court of J&K (Jammu Wing) which mandated the extension of SRO-149 benefits to qualified technical staff after quashing orders that had kept the SRO in abeyance
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the petitioner's claim but focused on the procedural lapse regarding the pending representations. It noted that the petitioner sought parity with employees of other departments (such as Geology & Mining and Medical Education) who had already received the benefit of the revised pay scales
Source reference: p. 3-4Given that the counsel for the petitioner limited the prayer to a time-bound administrative decision, the Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the respondents to evaluate the petitioner's eligibility
Source reference: p. 5The analysis emphasized that if the petitioner is found to be "similarly circumstanced" and "squarely covered" by the High Court's previous judgment, the respondents are legally obligated to extend the same benefits to him
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the petition at the admission stage without commenting on the merits. It directed the respondents to treat the Original Application (O.A.) as a fresh representation and decide it alongside earlier representations by passing a "reasoned and speaking order"
The respondents were specifically directed to consider the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K regarding SRO-149 and determine if the petitioner is entitled to parity. The exercise must be completed within eight weeks from the date of service of the order
Source reference: p. 5-6/para. 07Original Court PDF
mohammad akbar mirvsPOWER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in