Full Judgment
C.W.P.No.9367 of 1993 -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9367 of 1993.
Date of decision : July 22, 2013.
Mohan Singh & another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Ors.....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
*** Present : Mr.Amit Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Ms.Monika Chibber, D.A.G.Punjab.
Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
*** AJAY TEWARI, J.
(Oral) On 17th July, 2013 following orders were passed: - “In these petitions the petitioners who are junior Draftsman are claiming a higher pay-scale than the 1200- 2100 granted to them pursuant to 3rd Punjab Pay Commission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the four main limbs of the arguments are as follows: - i.
Right from the time of 2nd Pay Commission the Sorot Gaurav 2013.07.27 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P.No.9367 of 1993 -:2:- endeavour of the Commissions has been to reduce the number of pay-scales and that is why the 2nd Pay Commission recommended single scale for all technical employees having similar educational and technical qualifications.
ii.
The 3rd Pay Commission had recommended the pay- scale of ` 950-1800 for junior Draftsman whose qualification was Matriculation at that point of time when a junior Draftsman was eligible for promotion after three years of service.
However, the Government increased the qualification of junior Draftsman to Matric with 2 years diploma and increased period for attaining eligibility for promotion to Draftsman from 3 years to 12 years and increased the pay-scale to `1200- 2100.
For the post of Draftsman neither the qualification was increased not was their essential eligibility period (for promotion to the post of Head Draftsman) increased and their pay-scale was increased to `1800-3200/- from `1540-2600/- as proposed by the commission.
iii.
In reply to C.W.P.No.10978 of 1993 the respondent had justified the grant of scale of `1200-2100/- to the petitioners on the analogy of same pay-scale having been granted to Survey ORS.As per learned counsel ultimately vide judgment and order dated Sorot Gaurav 2013.07.27 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P.No.9367 of 1993 -:3:- 15th May, 2009 passed in C.W.P.No.13330 of 1998, this Court had granted the pay-scale of `1800- 3200/- to the Surveyors while the petitioners in the present case would be content if they were granted the pay scale next below `1800-3200/-.
iv.
All other skilled persons in the employment of the employee who are in Class IV as opposed to the petitioners who are in Class III services have been granted pay-scale of `1800-3200/- and they all have the same qualifications i.e.Matric with 2 years diploma.
Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab seeks short adjournment to consider these arguments and the judgment in Rajinder Pal Gautam versus State of Punjab 2008 (3) S.C.T.753 which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Adjourned to 19th July, 2013.”
Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has argued that the judgment passed in C.W.P.No.13330 of 1998 as well as judgment of Rajinder Pal Gautam (supra) case would not help the petitioneRs.However, she could not repel the argument not iv (supra) except urging that the employees referred to therein are from different Departments.
In my opinion that would not constitute a complete answer.
It is not denied that those employees are from different Departments yet, as opposed petitioners who are Class III Government servants those employees are Class IV Sorot Gaurav 2013.07.27 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P.No.9367 of 1993 -:4:- Government servants.
The essential qualifications for appointment to the post of petitioners and those employees are same viz.
matriculation with 2 years diploma in the concerned trade and the petitioners are well as those employees are technically skilled craftsmen.
In view of this overwhelming similarity the distinction that they belonged to different departments would not hold water.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has again reiterated that the petitioners are not claiming the pay-scale of `1800-3200/- because that was the pay-scale prescribed for the promotion post viz.
Draftsman, but would be content with any scale higher than that of `1200-2100/- but below `1800-3200/-.
A perusal of the various pay-scales granted by the 3rd Pay Commission are as follows: - Sr.not Pay Scale 1.
`950-1800/- 2.
`1200-2100/- 3.
`1350-2400/- 4.
`1500-2640/- 5.
`1640-2925/- 6.
`1800-3200/- 7.
`2000-3500/- Keeping in view the facts that the requirement for promotion to Draftsman is 12 years service as Junior Draftsman, in my considered opinion the interest of justice would be best served if the respondent is directed to consider granting petitioners pay-scale of `1,500-2,640/- in place of `1200-2100/- granted to them.
By this means the argument of learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab regarding inapplicability of the equal pay for equal work principal would also not be violated and, even Sorot Gaurav 2013.07.27 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P.No.9367 of 1993 -:5:- though the petitioners will not be brought on par with Class-IV employees of other departments, yet some amelioration in their lot would definitely be achieved.
These petitions are disposed of in the above terMs.It is made clear that since the employees of the other Departments who may have sought parity along with petitioners have not approached this Court, hence this judgment would not apply to any other class of similarly situated employees.
Let the necessary consideration be made within the period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case the respondents accept the logic of this judgment and take a favourable view of the claim made by the petitioneRs.the consequential benefits be released to them within 6 months thereafter.
Petition disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) July 22, 2013 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Sorot Gaurav 2013.07.27 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document