Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40056 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8298 of 2023 Petitioner :- Hrishikesh Tripathi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P Through Its Principal Secretary Medical Education, Janpath Lucknow Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra,In Person Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,Sudeep Kumar Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Hrishikesh Tripathi, petitioner no. 1 in person, Mr. Vinay Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner nos. 2 to 4, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Sudeep Kumar and Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 24.11.2022 whereby petitioner's representation for higher grade pay has been rejected and also under challenge is order dated 01.06.2012 whereby a reference has been made for continuation of pay band and grade-pay admissible for the post of Occupational Therapist. The petitioners have also sought a direction to concerned authority for implementation of revised recommendation of pay committee (2008) for providing pay band-2 and grade pay of Rs.4,600/- with effect from January, 2006 as well as for providing benefit of revised recommendation of 6th pay committee 2008 for grade pay of Rs.4,600/- with effect from 2006. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners were initially engaged as Occupational Therapist but in view of the fact that revised recommendation of 6th pay committee-2008 - part VII in respect of Occupational Therapist for providing pay band-2 and grade pay Rs.4,600/- with effect from January 2006 was not accepted, they filed Writ Petition No. 3091 (SS) of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2016 in which this Court observed that petitioners' case is governed by the U.P. Medical Health & Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998 and that their claim had been rejected only on the ground that in case the same is accepted, similar demand would be raised from other departments. Such a reasoning was found to be flawed due to which a direction was issued to appropriate authority to consider grievance of petitioners afresh in light of recommendation of Director General, Medical Education & Training, U.P. dated 09.12.2014 for necessary orders for providing aforesaid pay band with enhanced grade pay to Occupational Therapist. 4. It appears that despite such orders having been passed, the opposite parties again rejected petitioners' case by means of order dated 30.06.2017, which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3550 (SS) of 2018. The said writ petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 09.08.2019 with a specific finding recorded by this Court while quoting Rule 2 of the 1998 Rules that essential conditions for payment on the post of Occupational Therapist includes either a diploma or a degree. 5. This Court in the said judgment thereafter held that rejection of petitioner's case on the ground that they do not have diploma in their subject is beyond comprehension since the essential qualifications as per rules provides for either a degree or a diploma and it is an admitted case that all petitioners fulfill qualifications having degree in Occupational Therapist. In view of such a finding having been recorded a direction was issued to concerned authority to provide petitioner's revised recommendation of 6th pay committee-2008 sofar as it relates to providing pay band-2 and grade pay of Rs.4,600/- with effect from January 2006 with all consequential benefits. Said judgement was thereafter challenged in Special Appeal No. 221 of 2020, which was partly allowed by means of judgment and order dated 09.03.2022. 6. A perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that Division Bench adverted to the fact that pay committee pertaining to 1997-99 had made recommendations for grant of enhanced pay scale and grade pay, on the basis of which a decision was taken by the State Government as reflected in letter dated 26.09.2001 and wehereafter the pay committee- 2008 was constituted indicating qualification required for holding the said post which included diploma or degree in the concerned trade. 7. The 10th report of pay committee-2008 submitted on 18.11.2011 was also adverted to specifically with regard to recommendation of said report that minimum qualification for the post of Occupational Therapist be revised as four years degree course, which should be made available with the benefit of pay band-2 Rs.9300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs.4,600/-. It was noticed that the said recommendations were made by the pay committee-2008 in the background of certain factual aspects noticed by the committee, which were available on the report itself. 8. The aforesaid recommendation of pay committee-2008 and its 10th report was thereafter extensively evaluated by the Division Bench in light of letter dated 09.12.2014 submitted by the Director General, Medical Education & Training to the State Government and the Division Bench reached a conclusion that order dated 30.06.2017 had been passed on wrong facts with regard to minimum qualification prescribed for recruitment on the post of Occupational Therapist. The Division Bench thereafter found itself in agreement that judgment rendered by learned Single Judge sofar as it pertained to quashing of order dated 30.06.2017. However, specific direction given by learned Single Judge providing the aforesaid grade pay was interfered with only on the ground that it is the exclusive domain of the executive. 9. The aforesaid aspects were thereafter directed to be examined by competent authority treating order dated 30.06.2017 as having been set aside. The Division Bench has also specifically issued a direction that reconsideration of grievances of petitioners shall take place taking into consideration the rationale and reasoning given by pay committee-2008 in its 10th report pertaining to admissibility of payment of grade pay of Rs.4,600/- to the cadre of Occupational Therapist. 10. It is in pursuance thereof that impugned order has been passed. 11. Petitioner no. 1 in person and learned counsel for petitioner nos. 2 to 4 have submitted that despite specific directions having been issued by Division Bench of this Court for consideration of dispute afresh in light of pay committee report- 2008 in its 10th report, the rationale and reasoning given by pay committee have been ignored by competent authority while passing impugned orders. 12. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit filed submits that rationality of pay committee is evident from the 10th report itself and reasoning for rejection of petitioners' representations are also evident particularly in view of the fact that although minimum qualifications required for appointment on the post of Occupational Therapist as per service rules require either a diploma or a degree but recommendations of pay committee pertain to grant of enhanced pay scale and pay grade with the recommendation that such enhanced grade would be made available only once the minimum qualifications required for appointment as Occupational Therapist was revised to a four year degree. It is submitted that even otherwise the recommendations clearly stipulated that such revised qualifications would not have a bearing for payment of higher scale or higher grade pay merely on account of the fact that the incumbent are over-qualified. 13. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as indicated here-in-above are admitted between the parties. It is also evident as recorded by learned Single Judge and by Division Bench of this Court that as per service rules, the minimum qualification required for appointment on the post of Occupational Therapist is either a diploma or a degree but as per recommendations for higher pay scale and pay grade, it was recommended that minimum eligibility qualification should be revised to a four year degree. 14. It is evident from record that initial qualification required did not prescribe any particular time for obtaining a degree whereas the pay recommendations prescribed a four year degree once accepted. 15. The rationale for such a revision and for consequent revision of pay scale and pay grade was indicated by pay committee-2008 in its 10th report and in light of directions issued Division Bench of this Court, were mandatorily required by the concerned authority to be considered. 16. However, a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that the rationale provided by pay committee-2008 in its 10th report has not been considered by the authority as directed by the Division Bench. It is also evident that earlier orders passed by the opposite parties denying the said benefits to petitioners were based on a premise which was held invalid by learned Single Judge which was upheld by the Division Bench. 17. In such circumstances, it is evident that impugned order dated 24.11.2022 having not been passed considering directions issued by Division Bench of this Court is therefore unsustainable and is hereby quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari. The opposite party no.1 i.e., Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Lucknow in consultation with opposite party no. 3 Secretary Finance (Pay) U.P. Civil Secretariat Lucknow is directed to consider the grievance of petitioners for entitlement of enhanced pay and pay grade in light of directions issued by judgment and order dated 09.03.2022 passed in Special Appeal No. 221 of 2020. 18. The said decision shall be taken by the competent authority within a period of six weeks' from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. 19. Resultantly petition succeeds and is allowed. 20. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench