PIARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two Regular Second Appeals 647 and 682 of 1995 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since the arguments were addressed in Regular Second Appeal 682 of 1995 the facts are being taken from this case.

(2.) Plaintiff-appellant is working as a mason in the Provincial Division 1 of the Public Works Department of the State of Punjab at Ludhiana. He was initially drawing pay in the scale of Rs. 120-250. The pay scales were revised with effect from Jan. 1,1978 and he was given the scale of Rs. 400-600. His grievance is that the other masons like Jodh Ram and Hanuman who were also working as masons in the pay scale of Rs. 120-250 have been given the scale of Rs. 450-800 after revision. He filed a suit for declaration that he too was entitled to the revised scale of Rs. 450-800 as was given to others like Jodh Ram and Hanuman. The suit was contested by the State of Punjab and it was pleaded that the plaintiff had been employed as a mason Grade-II in the scale of Rs. 120-250 whereas Jodh Ram and Hanuman were appointed as masons Grade- I in the scale of Rs. 125-175. It was further pleaded that when the pay scales were revised in Jan., 1978 the scale of Rs. 120-250 was revised to Rs. 400-660 whereas the scale of Rs. 125-175 was revised to Rs. 450-800 and, therefore, the plaintiff was rightly given pay in the scale of Rs. 400-600.

(3.) On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that both plaintiff and Jodh Ram were getting pay in the scale of Rs. 120-250 in the year 1975 and they were doing the same work and were having some designation of a mason. Consequently, issues 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that he was also entitled to the revised grade of Rs. 450-800 with effect from the date when that grade was given to Jodh Ram and others. It was found that the others were doing the same work and having same duty hours and, therefore, the plaintiff was also entitled to the revised grade of Rs. 450-800 on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff had been engaged as a mason Grade-II whereas Jodh Ram and Hanuman were employed as masons Grade-I and, therefore, when the pay scales were revised in Jan., 1978 the masons in Grade-I were placed in the scale of Rs. 450-800 whereas masons in Grade-II were placed in the scale of Rs. 400-660. It was further held that the plaintiff was rightly given the grade of Rs. 400-660. The findings of the trial Court were reversed and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant dismissed. It is this decree and judgment of the learned District Judge that are now under challenge in the present appeal.