U.P. Laboratory Technicians'' Association and Others vs Smt. Sumita Kandpal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare and Another

K.D. Shahi, J.—This contempt petition has been filed by U.P. Laboratory Technicians Association through the General Secretary and others against Smt. Sumita Kandpal. Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., Lucknow and Dr. P. D. P. Mathur, Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow, to take action against them for wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 3.2.1993 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8345 of 1989.

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. There is an association of Laboratory Technicians and Senior Laboratory Technicians working under the Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh. There was some anomaly in the pay scale of Laboratory Technicians and Senior Laboratory Technicians and that of Laboratory Assistants working under the same department. Previously, the Laboratory Assistants were sanctioned lower pay scale than the present Petitioners. Subsequently, they were sanctioned higher pay scale as a result of which the present Petitioners filed a writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 8345 of 1989. The said petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 3.2.1993. A bare reading of the judgment shows that there were two directions. Firstly, the Laboratory Technicians will get the same pay scale as that of Laboratory Assistants within two months and secondly, the Senior Laboratory Technicians should make a representation for higher pay scale giving details of the nature of duties they are performing and how these duties are more arduous than those of Laboratory Assistants. If such representation is made within a month, the same shall be decided within two months thereafter by a reasoned order.

I will take up the second direction first. This Court directed the Senior Laboratory Technicians to make representation for higher pay scale within a month and the said representation was to be decided within two months. The Court did not specifically direct that the Senior Laboratory Technicians should be given better pay scale than that of the Laboratory Assistants. The Court only directed the Respondents to decide the representation by a reasoned order. The representation has now been decided on 16.11.1994. A copy of the decision has been filed as Annexure CA 3 to the supplementary counter-affidavit of Shri V.K Srivastava, Section Officer, dated 17.11.1994.

It is fantastic that the supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on 17.11.1994 and the decision was given on the representation only one day earlier, i.e., on 16.11.1994. It appears that this is only just to satisfy the stomach of the decision by putting something therein. The decision given by Respondent No. 1 is in Hindi which if translated in English is that so far as the question of giving higher pay scale to the Senior Laboratory Technicians is concerned, it is hereby informed that the present pay scale of Senior Laboratory Technicians is Rs. 1,400-2,300 which is higher than that of the Laboratory Technicians whose present pay scale is Rs. 1,320-2,040. Therefore, there is no question of giving any more higher pay scale to the Senior Laboratory Technicians. Consequently, the representation dated 27.2.1993 is hereby rejected.

What this Court desired was that the Senior Laboratory Technicians should make a representation for higher pay scale indicating therein the nature of duties they were performing and also how their duties were more arduous than that of the Laboratory Assistants. In other words, the position of the Senior Laboratory Assistants was to be compared with the position of the Laboratory Assistants, but the decision shows that the Respondent No. 1 in a hot haste manner compared the pay scale of Senior Laboratory Technicians with that of the Laboratory Technicians. The Respondent No. 1 did not advert to the duties assigned to the Senior Laboratory Technicians and the Laboratory Assistants and whether the duties of the Senior Laboratory Technicians are more arduous than that of the Laboratory Assistants and by a cryptic order rejected the representation of the Petitioners. In my view, the order passed by Respondent No. 1 is not in conformity with the direction issued by this Court. It was imperative for Respondent No. 1 to have considered the representation of the Petitioners in the light of the directions issued by this Court. It appears that in order to show compliance of the order of this Court, the representation was rejected. The action of Respondent No. 1 is wholly unbecoming and is not befitting to the status and the rank of the Principal Secretary. The Principal Secretary is the father, mother and guardian of the employees and officers of the entire Health Department and is supposed to redress their genuine grievances. In view of what has been enumerated above;, it is manifest that the order of this Court has not at all been complied with.

As regards the first direction, it is stated that the said direction too has been complied with, but a bare perusal of the order dated 16.11.1994 shows that there was only notional compliance and nothing else. The Respondent No. 1 has included the personal pay in the pay scale of Laboratory Technicians and in this way equated the Laboratory Technicians with the Laboratory Assistants in the matter of pay scale. The direction issued by this Court in respect of Laboratory Technicians is crystal clear and there is no ambiguity in it. It was specifically directed that the Laboratory Technicians will get the same pay scale as that of the Laboratory Assistants, but the Respondent No. 1 has calculated the personal pay also in the pay scale of the Laboratory Technicians. Personal pay is personal pay and cannot be said to be a part of the pay scale. Therefore, the first part of the direction was also not complied with.

A bare perusal of the record shows that the Respondents made every effort to avoid compliance. They neither filed counter-affidavit nor appeared. Thereafter, this Court vide its orders dated 9.11.1993 and 22.8.94 directed the Respondent No. 1 to appear in person before this Court. The order passed by Hon''ble M. P. Kenia, J. was that the learned standing counsel stated that the position had been conveyed to the officer concerned on 19.8.1994, but he had not received any intimation from the officer concerned nor the officer concerned had chosen to remain present though informed. The standing counsel requested that the matter be fixed for 7th September, 1994, when the officer concerned, namely, Smt. Sumita Kandpal, Principal Secretary, shall appear. She was directed to remain present without fail to avoid any embarrassing stage arising in the matter.

On 7th September, 1994, Respondent No. 1, Smt. Sumita Kandpal, Principal Secretary, appeared in court and filed counter-affidavit along with the copies of the three Government Orders, one Government Order was dated 6.9.1994 and two Government Orders were dated 19.9.1994 purported to have been issued in compliance of the order of this Court dated 3.2.1993. Hon''ble M. P. Kenia, J., passed an order that Mr. V. B. Singh appearing on behalf of the Respondent Ms. Sumita Kandpal stated that on the part of the Respondent and State they would make sure that the order passed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice M. Katju, being the subject-matter of the present petition for contempt, would be fully complied with at the earliest. Even with regard to the representation which was still pending disposal, contrary to the directions contained in the order with regard to its disposal, the counsel assured the court that by the next date of listing of this matter, he would be in a position to inform the court that the same had been duly disposed of.

A bare perusal of the Government Orders shows that the higher pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300 was given only to such Laboratory Technicians who were in the pay scale of Rs. 515-860 on 18.7.1981 and the remaining Laboratory Technicians who were not in the aforesaid pay scale were deprived of the aforesaid pay scale. It is also clear that further benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300 has not been given to the Laboratory Technicians working in State Health Institute, Patwa Dangar, Nainital, State Vaccination Institute, Government Public Analyst, Lucknow, Industrial Health Organisation, Kanpur, although all of them are the members of the Association, Petitioner No. 1. It need not be emphasised that the Association has filed the writ petition for the benefits of all Laboratory Technicians who are working in the Health Department.

It is well settled now that whenever pay scale of a particular cadre is revised, it carries time scale and primary scale and the same are made available to all the employees of the said cadre. In the Government Orders pertaining to Laboratory Technicians, neither the time scale nor the primary scale has been specified and these columns have been left blank in the Government Orders. I have already observed earlier that equal pay scale means equal pay scale in all respect.

In view of what has been discussed above, I find that Respondent No. 1 has done mud-washing and nothing else. In my view, this is no compliance of the order passed by this Court. However, an effort has been made to show that the Government Orders have been issued in compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 3.2.93, but that is only an eye-wash.

I do not want to punish the Respondents at this stage but depart only with a note of sorrow and with the remark that the karta of the family should not be vindictive against his family members and should try to provide them justice as far as possible. Justice can be done everywhere and the administrative officers should not think that their work is only of administrative nature. In the matter like the present one. they also exercise quasi judicial function and while deciding a representation, they should act as a Judge.

Accordingly, the Respondents are again directed to comply with the order of this Court dated 3.2.1993 in its letter and spirit. The matter has been clarified to a great extent although the order of the Court dated 3.2.93 is specific and clear.

List this petition on 17.9.1997 for further orders. If the order dated 3.2.93 is not complied with, Respondents should appear in person in this Court on the date fixed.