Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.24344 of 2012 DATE OF DECISION :
10. 12.2012 Kamal and others ...PETITIONERS Versus Union of India and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.*** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
( Oral ) In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.1.2011 (Annexure P-8).passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal').whereby OA No.588/CH/2008 filed by them, claiming pay scale of ` 950-1800 from the date of appointment, in the case of petitioners No.1 to 4, and from the date of acquiring qualification of Matriculation, in the case of petitioner No.5, has been dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order.
Undisputedly, all the petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Attendants (Group-D) in the year 1991-92.
At that time, pay scale for the CWP No.24344 of 2012 -2- said post was ` 750-1350, with an initial start of ` 770, and the essential qualification was Middle pass.
The petitioners claim that since petitioners No.1 to 4 were already Matriculates, and petitioner No.5 acquired the Matriculation qualification after his appointment, therefore, they are entitled for higher pay scale of ` 950-1800, which is applicable in case of Laboratory Attendants (Group-C).The claim of the petitioners has been opposed by the Chandigarh Administration stating that Laboratory Attendant (Group-C) and (Group-D) are different posts with different pay scales and qualifications.
The petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Attendants (Group-D).Thereafter, in the year 1997, they were asked to appear for interview for selection/promotion to Group-C posts.
Admittedly, the petitioners did not appear for the said interview.
In these facts, it has been held by the Tribunal that the petitioners are not entitled for the said pay scale.
It has also been held that the petitioners cannot seek parity with the persons, who applied for, competed in and were successfully selected in the said selection process for Group-C posts.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that actually, there is no difference between Group-C and Group-D posts, and a person, who has been appointed as Laboratory Attendant (Group-D).if he/she is having the qualification of Matriculation pass or acquires the same qualification after his appointment, such person is to be absorbed as “Senior Laboratory Attendant”.
and the pay scale of ` 950-1800 is to be extended to him/her.
In CWP No.24344 of 2012 -3- our opinion, this contention cannot be accepted, because the two categories of Laboratory Attendants are entirely different and for selecting/promoting Group-D employees as Group-C, a DPC was constituted, and every person, who was working as Laboratory Attendant (Group-D) and was having the qualification of Matriculation, was offered opportunity to compete in the selection and to appear for interview.
The persons, who remained unsuccessful or did not appear for the interview, were not entitled to the pay scale of ` 950-1800, which is meant for Laboratory Attendant (Group-C).Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal.
No merit.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 10, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE