DEBESH CHAKRABORTY Vs. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order dated 6.6.1995 (Annexure P7) claiming pay at par with his juniors.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Desk Controller advertised by the respondents -Corporation. However, petitioner was appointed as Turbine Controller vide order dated 16.11.1983 (Annexure P3). Petitioner joined the said post with effect from 16.12.1983 and represented to the respondents that he had applied for the post of Desk Controller and had been called for interview for the said post but has been appointed as Turbine Controller. Petitioner was assured that both the posts were interchangeable. A joint tentative seniority list of Desk Controller and Turbine Controller was issued on 30.6.1984 and petitioner was shown at No. 103, whereas, Naresh Chander Saini was shown at serial No. 117. The pay scale for the post of Turbine Controller/Desk Controller was revised from Rs. 800 -1400 to Rs. 2000 -3500 with effect from 1.1.1986. Petitioner was granted devised promotional scale with effect from 16.12.1990, whereas, the Desk Controller who had joined in January, 1984 onwards were given devised promotional scale in January, 1991. However, the pay of the Desk Controller was fixed at Rs. 2460/ - in the pay scale of Rs. 2100 -3700. Thus, the Desk Controller junior to the petitioner started drawing more basic pay than the petitioner. Desk Controllers, who were appointed with the petitioner in December, 1983, also started getting less basic pay than their juniors. Petitioner along with other Desk Controllers filed C.W.P. No. 16887 of 1994. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents -Board to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner within two months by passing a speaking order. So far as the petitioners in the said petition who were Desk Controllers, they were granted the same pay scale as was being paid to the Desk Controller junior to them. However, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure P7. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the Turbine Controller and Desk Controller formed different categories. A joint seniority list had been issued only for promotion purposes, whereas, a separate seniority list has been issued qua Turbine Controller and Desk Controller. Petitioner had accepted the offer of appointment for the post of Turbine Controller vide Annexure P5. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim parity vis -a -vis Desk Controller.