Nasib Singh vs Chandigarh Administration And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking directions to respondents to grant him pay scale of ₹3120-5160/- w.e.f. the date he passed matriculation examination.

The petitioner on 06.11.1971 joined as Laboratory Attendant (Class-D) in D.A.V. College, Sector 10, Chandigarh. The Punjab Government vide order dated 18.04.1983 re-designated all the Lab Attendants as Senior Lab Attendants. The petitioner passed matriculation exam in November’ 2002. Chandigarh Administration adopted pay scale on Punjab pattern in favour of non-teaching employees working in privately managed Government aided colleges in U.T., Chandigarh. The pay scale of Punjab Government was adopted w.e.f. 01.01.1986. By order dated 03.06.1998, Chandigarh Administration adopted pay scale of Punjab Government w.e.f. 01.04.1991 in respect of teaching and non-teaching employees working in privately managed Government aided colleges in Chandigarh. Punjab Government vide order dated 11.05.1993 revised pay scale of Lab Attendants from the date of passing matriculation exam. The petitioner, claiming parity with Punjab Government employees, submitted representation to respondents to grant him pay scale of ₹3120-5160/-. Principal of respondent No.3-college vide letter dated 31.03.2003 recommended and sent case of the petitioner to Director, Public Instructions (for short ‘DPI’) (Colleges), Chandigarh who vide letter dated 17.06.2003 intimated respondent No.3-college that matter is lying with Finance Department for adoption of letter dated 11.05.1993 issued by Punjab Government. DPI (Colleges), Chandigarh issued letter dated 31.03.1998 to Principals of all privately managed Government aided colleges that designation of Lab Attendants who are matriculate be changed to Senior Lab Attendants. It was further clarified that they shall not be entitled to higher grade on account of change of designation. The Director, Higher Education, Chandigarh Administration vide letter dated 05.07.2007 rejected petitioner’s claim.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled to pay scale of ₹3120-5160/- as per notification dated 11.05.1993 of Punjab Government. The pay scales payable to Punjab Government employees are applicable to employees of privately managed Government aided colleges in Chandigarh.

PER CONTRA, learned counsel for the respondents submit that U.T. Administration has not adopted Punjab Government notification dated 11.05.1993 wherein it was clarified that Lab Attendants who have passed matriculation would be given pay scale of Senior Lab Attendants. In the State of Punjab, there is one cadre of Lab Staff but in U.T. Administration since 1978, there are two different cadres i.e. Lab Attendants and Senior Lab Attendants. Senior Lab Attendants as Group-C employees are entitled to pay scale of ₹3120-5160/- whereas Lab Attendants as Group-D employees are entitled to pay scale of ₹2720-4260/-.

5.Heard the arguments and perused the record.

It is evident that claim of the petitioner is based upon Punjab Government’s notification dated 11.05.1993. By said notification, it was clarified that Lab Attendants would be entitled to pay scale of Senior Lab Attendants the moment they pass matriculation exam. U.T. Administration adopted pay pattern of Punjab Government, however, aforesaid notification was never adopted. There is one cadre of Lab Attendant in the State of Punjab whereas U.T. Administration is having two cadres i.e. Lab Attendants and Senior Lab Attendants. Lab Attendant is a Group-D post whereas Senior Lab Attendant is a Group-C post. The qualification for recruitment of both the posts is different. A similarly situated Lab Attendant filed petition before Central Administrative Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2007. As U.T. Administration has not adopted aforesaid notification of State of Punjab, this Court cannot ask U.T. Administration or D.A.V. College to extend the benefit of aforesaid notification to the petitioner.

In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.