DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are Instructors and working in various Industrial Training Institutes in the State of Punjab where training is imparted in various trades i.e. Radio Mechanic. Motor Mechanic, Electrician, Drawing, Fitters etc. The pay scale of these Instructors on 4.1.1961 was Rs. 80-200 but vide order dated 23.2.1962, Annexure P/1, Pay scale of Instructors falling in eight trades, namely, Surveyor, Radio Mechanic, Motor Mechanic, Instrument Mechanic, Electrician, Referigerator Mechanic, Tractor Mechanic and Tool Maker was revised from Rs. 80-200 to Rs. 160-330. The pay scale of Instructors of remaining trades remained unchanged i.e. Rs. 80-200. Further revision in pay scales became effective from 1.21963 and 181 Instructors who were in the pay scale of Rs. 160-330 were placed in the pay scale of Rs.200-450 and these Instructors who were drawing pay scale of Rs. 80-200 were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 160-400. since the qualifications for appointment to all the posts of Instructors were the same and they were governed by the same service conditions and there was joint seniority list for all these Instructors, representations were made by Instructors who were not falling in those eight trades, for bringing parity in the pay scales. Considering their representations, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 160-400 but 181 Instructors who had earlier been placed in the pay scale of Rs.200-450 were allowed to continue in the scale previously enjoyed by them but it was made personal to them. Subsequently, vide order dated dated 20.10.1976, Annexure P/3 this anomaly was also removed and all the Instructors were given the pay scale of Rs. 225-500 with effect from 6.4.1976. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that though uniform pay scale has been given to all the Instructors, yet some of the Instructors who are junior to the petitioner but falling in the above mentioned eight trades, are drawing more pay compared to the petitioners. Accordingly to the petitioners, they are entitled to the same emoluments. To demonstrate this, petitioners have annexed annexure P/4 to the writ petition, perusal of which shows that the petitioners are drawing pay between Rs. 2,200/- and Rs. 2,300/- per month whereas persons junior to them are drawing pay between Rs. 2,520/- and Rs. 2,580/- per month. The prayer thus made in the writ petition is that the pay of the petitioners be stepped up equal to the ones which their juniors are drawing.

(2.) In opposition of this, respondents have stated in the written statement that in view of decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 654 of 1970 decided on January 24, 1972, no relief can be given to the petitioners.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the judgment in Letters patent Appeal No. 654 of 1970, I am of the view the the the petitioners are entided to the relief prayed for. At the time when the Letters Patent Appeal was decided though all Instructors were put at par, yet by giving concession 181 Instructors falling in eight trades, were allowed to continue in the pay scale of Rs.200-450. In view of this concession, relief was not given to the petitioners therein. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that vide order dated 20.10.1976, Annexure P/3 all the Instructors were given the pay scale of Rs. 225-500 with effect from 6.41976 but still persons junior to the petitioners falling in those eight trades are drawing more pay compared to the petitioners, the grievance of the petitioners is legitimate. This disparity cannot be allowed to be continued for the reason that the qualifications for appointment to all the posts of Instructors are the same and they are governed by same service conditions and there is a joint seniority list of all the Instructors. Further their seniority is depending on the date of appointment irrespective of the pay drawn. In this view of the matter, senior persons are certainly entitled to all those benefits which their juniors in the same cadre are getting i.e. the pay of a senior cannot be less than that of junior. Thus, I am of the view that the action of the respondents in denying the same emoluments to the petitioners which their juniors are getting is wholly unfair.