STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the punjab and Haryana High court in Civil Writ Petition No. 16441 of 1993. The respondents were recruited as Constables in the Police Department of haryana government. After their appointment, they were deputed either as wireless Operators, Drivers or Messengers in the Telecom Wing of the police Department. The respondents in this case were deputed as Constable drivers in the Telecom Wing of the Police Department.

(2.) The respondents filed Writ Petition No. 16441 of 1993 seeking parity with the pay scale of Rs 1200-2040 which was applicable to the Drivers employed in the Civil Department of the Haryana government with effect from 1/5/1990, mainly on the ground that the duties discharged by the respondents and the Drivers employed in the Civil Department are identical.

(3.) Contesting the writ petition, the appellants brought to the notice of the court in the counter-affidavit that the Constables, who are deputed as drivers in the Police Department, form a completely separate cadre and that they cannot be compared with the Drivers in other Civil Departments of the state of Haryana. It was also stated that the respondent-Constables are entitled to various additional benefits and perks and that comparison with the Drivers employed in the Civil Departments would be inappropriate. It was also brought to the notice of the High court that the respondents in addition to the basic pay of Rs 950-1800 are entitled to Special Pay Ration money per month, travelling concession, conveyance allowance, summer and winter uniforms and one month's additional pay every year. The Drivers in the Civil Department of the government, no doubt, get a higher pay scale of Rs 1200-2040, without any of the other additional benefits available to constables in the Police Department/respondents as mentioned above. Furthermore, it was brought to the notice of the court that the Drivers in the civil Department have no promotional avenues whatsoever, whereas the respondents were eligible to be promoted to the post of Head Constable, thereafter ASI, SI, Inspector, etc. Pointing out these circumstances, the appellants opposed the prayer of the respondents in the writ petition.