Diploma engineers entitled to Sub-Assistant Engineer designation and pay scale. State's actions deemed arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that diploma holder engineers were entitled to the designation and pay scale of Sub-Assistant Engineers under the amended Notification. The Court found the State's actions arbitrary and discriminatory in granting benefits to others while denying them to the respondents. The Court dismissed the appeals, directing the respondents' absorption into existing vacancies and ordering each party to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 10303.F dated 19th November 1974.
2. Interpretation of sub-para (ii) of Para IV of the Notification.
3. Alleged discriminatory treatment of diploma holder engineers.
4. Preliminary objection regarding non-appeal against a similar judgment.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Notification No. 10303.F dated 19th November 1974:
The West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1970, were amended by Notification No. 10303.F dated 19th November 1974. The amendments included changes in the pay scales and designations of various engineering posts, including Assistant Engineers, Executive Engineers, and Sub-Assistant Engineers. The respondents, diploma holder engineers employed as Operator-cum-Mechanics/Electricians, claimed entitlement to the benefits of this Notification, specifically the designation and pay scale of Sub-Assistant Engineers.

2. Interpretation of sub-para (ii) of Para IV of the Notification:
The High Court's single Judge interpreted sub-para (ii) of Para IV of the Notification to include "other diploma holder engineers" like the respondents, thus entitling them to be termed as Sub-Assistant Engineers and receive the corresponding pay scale. The Division Bench initially held a contrary view but was found to have overlooked the factual background and the intent to remove anomalies and attract qualified personnel. The Supreme Court upheld the single Judge's interpretation, affirming that the Notification applied to the respondents.

3. Alleged discriminatory treatment of diploma holder engineers:
The respondents argued that similarly situated individuals in other departments received the benefits of the Notification, while they were subjected to discriminatory treatment. The State contended that the Notification only applied to those already in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600. The Supreme Court found that the State had acted arbitrarily by granting benefits to 17 other employees while denying them to the respondents, thus supporting the claim of discrimination.

4. Preliminary objection regarding non-appeal against a similar judgment:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection, citing that the State had not appealed against a similar judgment in the case of Ranjit Kumar Ghosh & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. The Supreme Court overruled this objection, referencing the principle that the finality of unchallenged orders does not preclude the Court from deciding the present case on its merits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the respondents, as diploma holder engineers, were entitled to the designation and pay scale of Sub-Assistant Engineers as per the amended Notification. The Court directed that the respondents be absorbed in the existing vacancies and noted that they had already been admitted to the benefits of the amended Rule. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs. Appeals dismissed.

---