High CourtsSingle Bench(1992) 04 AHC CK 0104

Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 21 April 1992 · Citation: (1992) 3 AWC 1351

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Katju, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23579 of 1989

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 327 words

M. Katju, J.—Petitioners claimed that they are confirmed employees of the Government Printing and Stationary Press, U.P., Allahabad and they are working as Fitter Mechanic. By means of this writ petition they are claiming the same pay scale as Mechine Men. It is alleged in the writ petition that while in the first and second pay commission report both the Fitter Mechanics and Machine Men were given the same pay scale, the third pay commission report has given a higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 to Machine Men while the Fitter Mechanics have been given only the grade of Rs. 950-1500. It is also alleged that the job of the Fitter Mechanics and Machine men is similar and they should be given the same pay scale, and for this purpose this writ petition has been filed.

2.

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case in which in para 7 it is stated that while the job of the mechanic is confined only to repairing a machine and removing certain defects, the job of Machine men is productive in nature by running the machine and producing certain things in the process In my opinion the job of a Mechanic cannot be equated to the job of Machine men. A person who repairs the machine, does not do the same work as the person who runs the machine. For example a pilot of an Aeroplane who flies the aircraft surely does not do the same work as the ground crew who repair the aircraft on the ground and kept it in good condition. Similarly a driver of a motorcar surely does not do the same work as a garage mechanic. Thus it cannot be said that a fitter mechanic is doing the same job as a machine man. Hence Article 14 of the Constitution has no application.

3.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the present case. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.