JASWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Gallery Assistant in the Department of Cultural Affairs, Archaeology and Museum. The cadre strength at the moment of the said post is five. Petitioner was appointed to the said post in the year 1992, whereas the other four were appointed as such between the period 1987 to 1989. To the four Gallery Assistants a pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from Jan. 1, 1986 has been granted. Since they were appointed between the period 1987 to 1989, they have been given this pay scale with effect from the dates of their joining. Petitioner claims that the respondents cannot discriminate him so far as the pay scale is concerned as he also belongs to the same cadre and is doing the same duties and having the same service conditions as the other four Gallery Assistants. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, the stand of the respondents is that the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 was given to the other four Gallery Assistants as a personal measure to them vide order dated May 9,1991. Since the petitioner was appointed after that date with a clear stipulation that he would be in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640.00, he cannot claim the same pay scale as is given to the other four Gallery Assistants, which pay scale was given to them as a personal measure.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this writ petition deserves to succeed. No reason is forthcoming as to why the higher pay scale was given to the other four Gallery Assistants as a personal measure. Petitioner belongs to the same cadre to which the other four Gallery Assistants belong, to whom pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 has been given. The petitioner is having the same service conditions as the other four Gallery Assistants and is doing the same duties and shouldering the same responsibilities. The respondents cannot discriminate persons similarly situated, within the same cadre unless they can justify that the petitioner is of a different class as compared to the four other persons who have been given the higher pay scale. No basis, as observed above has been given as to why the petitioner is being treated differently in so far as the pay scale is concerned, as compared to the other four Gallery Assistants.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the same pay scale i.e. Rs. 1800-3200, revised from time to time from the date of his joining. However, the arrears, so calculated, shall be confined to three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition, which was filed on March 31, 1997. Let these directions be carried on within a period of three months of the receipt of a copy of this order either from this Court or a certified copy thereof from the petitioner, whichever is earlier. Petitioner allowed.