STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE nature of order which we propose to pass does not call for stating the facts in detail. Succinctly put, the respondents were appointed as Pump Operators and were given pay scale of Rs.100- 160.00. As per the First Pay Commission's report, they demanded the pay scale of Rs.140-300.00. Writ petition was filed by them for this relief, inter alia, stating that such a relief to identically situated persons had already been granted by the learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.10759 of 1990 titled as Rajinder Pal Gautam and Others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 30.5.2008. This judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No.44 of 2009, decided on 15.2.2010 (titled: State of Punjab and others vs. Rajinder Paul Gautam and Others). Case of the petitioners in Rajinder Pal Gautam (supra) was that they were appointed as Pump Operators in Public Health Department, Punjab, between 1967 to 1980 and were given unrevised pay scale of Rs.110- 180.00. In the report of the Pay Commission submitted in 1968, recommendations were made for making categories as per qualifications for grant of pay scales and for Category IV (in respect of Qualification of Matric with two years Technical Training from recognized Institute), scale of Rs.140-300.00 was recommended by the Deputy Secretary, PWD in letter dated 4.2.1969 and in letter dated 25.4.1990 by the Chief Engineer. Since the said pay scale was not accepted, writ petition was filed in this Court in the year 1990. The State contested the claim of the petitioners on the ground that no rules have been finalized as per recommendation of the Commission and, thus, the scale recommended could not be given.

(2.) LEARNED single Judge allowed the writ petition in respect of persons having the prescribed qualification, holding that once the writ petitioners had the necessary qualification for pay scale of Rs.140- 300.00, as mentioned above, there was no reason not to follow the recommendation of the Pay Commission, when for some similarly placed employee, the said scale had been allowed. Reliance was placed on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Purshottam Lal and others vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1973 SC 1088 and Laljee Dubey vs. Union of India, (1974) 1 SCC 230 to the effect that discrimination was not permissible in the course of implementation of recommendations. Relevant finding recorded by learned single Judge is as under:-

(3.) ON behalf of learned counsel for the respondents, it was tried to argue that the orders dated 14.12.2011 are contemptuous in nature and further that many orders are passed thereafter giving benefit even to those who did not have qualification of two years diploma through ITI with matriculation, but were having only one year course.