AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan J.—The prayer in the writ petition at the instance of petitioners, who were Stores Purchase Assistants (SPAs for short) at various divisions within the State of Punjab, is for direction that they shall be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200/-equivalent to similarly situated persons w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The claim is made on the basis that they had been promoted at various dates between the year 1991-92 to the post as Store Purchase Assistant from the post of Clerk. The petitioner would contend that the promotion post from the post of Clerk are Assistant, Preventive Maintenance Assistant and Store Purchase Assistant as per seniority and merit and all the Assistants are placed in the same joint seniority list of the Assistants. The joint seniority list of all the Assistants, which was circulated is also filed before the Court. The Senior Purchase Assistant is a feeder cadre to the post of Superintendent Grade II. After the petitioners were promoted to the post of SPA, Assistant Grades Examination Rules, 1984 had been introduced requiring a pass in the examination for being considered for promotion. However, the said Rules were prospective and did not apply to the persons, who had been promoted before the Rules were introduced.
The petitioners would contend that the SPAs were always being paid the salary as of Assistants and the 1st pay Commission recommended a parity of scales for Assistants and SPAs. The 2nd Pay Commission, however, provided for higher scales for Assistants at Rs.570-1080/-while for SPA it was Rs.510-940/-. The disparity also continued with the 3rd pay Commission when the Assistants were granted pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/-while the SPAs were paid at Rs.1350-2400/-. The petitioners were clamouring for removal of the anomaly and the representation was said to have been considered favourably as SPAs being provided a scale at par with Assistants at Rs.1500-2640/-by notification dated 15.02.1990 but subsequently, when the scales of Assistants had been raised to Rs.1800-3200/-by the notification dated 15.06.1990, the petitioners had not been granted parity. The representations for removal of anomaly gave place to a partial acceptance and released the scale at Rs.1800-3200/-to certain categories of Assistants by notification dated 31.10.1991. All this change did not bring any benefit to the category of SPAs. The writ petition is, therefore, filed claiming that the disparity in pay by not providing the scale at Rs.1800-3200/- to SPAs is unjustified.
The claim of the petitioners is resisted by the respondents by contending that the fixation of scales of pay are exclusively within the domain of the State Policy and the function of expert bodies like Pay Commissions and the Courts shall not direct any particular scales to be fixed in the absence of definite materials for appraisal. The respondents would contend that the Assistants in Transport Department were never treated at par with the post of Assistants of other departments and the Assistants of former category had always been placed in lower pay scales. The respondents would refer to the instructions of the Finance Department issued on 27.05.1992 that the posts of Chief Store Keepers, Store Purchase Assistants and Stock Verifier were merged in the post of Senior Assistants and gave them the scales of Rs.1800-3200/-subject to the condition that only post of those incumbents would be redesignated as Senior Assistants and merged with cadre of Senior Assistants, who had qualified the Assistant Grade Examination introduced under the 1984 Rules.
On the facts brought out by the State, I cannot find any reason to accept the claim of the petitioners. While I would agree with the contention that they could not be compelled to pass the Assistant Grade Examination under the 1984 Rules for retaining them in the post as Store Purchase Assistants since they had already gained the promotion to the post prior to the 1984 Rules, if the post was to be merged with the post of Senior Assistants to be provided with higher scales of Rs.1800-3200/-, it cannot be said to be arbitrary, for an upgradation requiring a certain minimum qualification cannot itself be a ground for intervention. If only there is a complaint for every Store Purchase Assistant to pass the examination to retain the post, it could be urged that such a retrospective application of the Rules cannot be made. On the other hand, if there is condition imposed for claiming higher scales and for a redesignation as a Senior Assistant, it should be left as a matter of policy that the Court cannot interfere with. Under the circumstances, I cannot find the petitioners'' claim in the writ petition to be not tenable. The writ petition would require to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.