Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Subodh Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 67116 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4643 (21 October 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

         Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee in Municipal Board, Etah in 1984. He is a graduate and holding ITC certificate which is said to be equivalent to the ITI certificate. He was regularized and was appointed as Pump Attendant in Jal Kal Vibhag, Municipal Board, Etah in the revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12-870 on 11.3.92.

          It is claimed by the petitioner that he is performing the same work and duties as the employees holding ITI certificate who have been placed in the Higher Pay Scale of Rs. 775-12-871 (revised pay scale Rs.2610.00) and he is getting lesser salary, hence he is also entitled to the same pay scale.

        Merely having equivalence and higher qualification does not entitle the person to claim higher pay scale. The question whether ITC certificate held by the petitioner and ITI certificate held by the other employees who are getting higher pay scale is equivalent or not and whether the petitioner is performing the same duties as performed by the employees with whom he is claiming parity can not be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as it requires adjudication on the basis of evidence.

Although the petitioner has an alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, the counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) may be directed to be decided by respondent no. 2 within a time frame fixed by this Court. The standing counsel has no objection.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2004 keeping in view the order dated 18th October, 1968 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.

The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before respondent no. 2 within 15 days from today.

Dated 21.10.2005



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.