SOM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners clamour for the pay scale that is being given to Battery Attendants employed by the Transport Department, Haryana in the Roadways known as Haryana Roadways. The uncontroverted facts as made out from the petition are that the petitioners were recruited as Diesel Pump Attendants in the pay scale of Rs. 350-500 and the qualification prescribed for the post that they claim to occupy was Matriculation. All the petitioners, as per averments made, have more than five years of continuous service. The Battery Attendants employed with the Haryana Roadways were getting the same pay scales that were being given to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 350-500. It is a categoric case of the petitioners that the Battery Attendants were performing the same type of duties and in fact, even Matriculation was not required to be a necessary qualification for their recruitment. In spite of the fact that the petitioners who were Diesel Pump Attendants were getting the same pay scales as were given to Battery Attendants for quite a long time, neither the Government nor Authorities of Haryana Roadways even thought of equating the pay scales of the petitioners with Battery Attendants, who were given a boost in their pay from pay scale of Rs. 350-500 to Rs. 420-700 from the year 1979. The petitioners contend that this is absolutely an arbitrary and discriminatory act. They also contend that it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, they deserve the same treatment with regard to the pay scales that is being accorded to the Battery Attendants. As has been mentioned above, the contentions raised in the petition have not been controverted till date.

(2.) It shall be relevant to mention that the Division Bench of this Court on February 19, 1987 issued notice of motion for March 27, 1987. On the date fixed i.e. March 27, 1987 the counsel appearing for the respondent wanted time to file reply and he was allowed to do so on or before April 24, 1987. With advance copy to the counsel for the petitioners the case was adjourned for arguments to April 28, 1987. On April 28, 1987, counsel for the respondent again stated that he wanted time to file the reply and he was allowed to do so on or before May 12, 1987 with advance copy to the counsel opposite and the case stood adjourned to May 14, 1987 for arguments. It appears that the matter came up for hearing on May 14, 1987 when no reply was filed and the Writ Petition was admitted. The matter has remained pending in this Court after admission for about four years and no one has cared to file reply till date. Even today when the matter was taken up for arguments no one put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana. The petitioners have been clamouring for their rights and have been even making applications for early hearing and vide order passed by the then Chief Justice the matter was ordered to be heard for final hearing on September 11, 1990. The order for early hearing is dated August 11, 1989. The counsel for the petitioners is justified to contend that any further delay in the matter would perpetuate injustice.

(3.) In view of the fact that no written statement has been filed till date nor anyone has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana, I have no choice but to totally accept the contentions raised in the petition and to allow the same. A direction is issued to the respondent State of Haryana to grant same pay scales as have been given to Battery Attendants i.e. the pay scales of Rs. 420-700 from the date the same were given to Battery Attendants. The petitioners have not specified the date and only the year 1979 is mentioned when the Battery Attendants started getting more pay scales than the petitioners. The respondent would find out the date when the Battery Attendants started drawing more pay scales, than that of the petitioners and from that date all the petitioners would be given the pay scale of Rs. 420-700.