STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 19th May, 1993, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3242 of 1989 (Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana). By this judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioners shall be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, as had been granted to the Storekeepers in the Department of Industrial Training and Vocational Education with effect from 1st January, 1986 with consequential reliefs.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Store Keepers in the Public Works Department, Buildings and Roads Branch of the State of Haryana. They were placed in the scale of Rs.400-600 with effect from 1st April, 1970 and later on, this pay scale was revised and raised to Rs.950-1500 with effect from 1st January, 1986 vide notification dated 29th April, 1987. The petitioners alleged that the Store-keepers in the Department of Industrial Training and Vocational Education and the Store-keepers working in the Moti Lai School of Sports Rai were placed in the higher scale, i.e. Rs.525-1050 which was revised and raised to Rs.1400-2600 with effect from 1st January, 1986, though the qualification and nature of duties of the petitioners as well as of the Store-keepers working in other two Departments were identical.

(3.) After notice was issued to the respondents, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ petition and after the amendment was allowed, the amended writ petition was filed on 11th January, 1993. While allowing the application for amendment, it was directed that the amended writ petition be filed on or before 11th January, 1993, with advance copy to the Advocate General, Haryana, to file written statement to the amended writ petition within two weeks, thereafter and the writ petition was set down for final hearing on 15th February, 1993. The written statement was not, however, filed till 19th May, 1993 when the final arguments were heard by the Court. In this situation, the facts as stated in the writ petition were treated as having been admitted and relying on the said facts, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the qualifications and nature of the duties performed by the Store- keepers in the Department of Public Works as well as in the Department of Industrial Training and Vocational Education were identical. The learned Single Judge also referred to the letter dated 24th January, 1989 written by the Engineer- in-Chief, Haryana, P.W.D., B&R Branch, Chandigarh to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of India, PWD, B&R Branch, Chandigarh (which pertains to the internal correspondence of the Department) and held that the "observations of the Engineer-in- Chief that the Storekeeper in the Haryana PWD Department does not operate any Store account as is done by the Store-keeper in the Industrial Training Department" did not appear to be correct. For these reasons, the writ petition was allowed as stated hereinabove.