Pardeep Kumar and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—Seeking parity with Research Officers working in other departments of the Punjab Government, the petitioners working as Technical Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 1,800-3,200 have sought pay scale of Rs. 2,410-4,000 as Research Officers w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Originally this petition was preferred by four petitioners but on 07.03.1996, petitioners No. 3 and 4 had withdrawn the petition. Consequently, only petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have remained to pursue the petition.

Sole question to be decided in this petition is as to whether parity sought to be drawn by the petitioners with Research Officers of other departments, is available to the petitioners or not?

The Petitioners were appointed as Technical Assistants under respondent No. 3, they were later promoted as Research Officers. Technical Assistants were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1,200 and Research Officers were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1,580. After revision of pay scales vide recommendations of third pay commission, grade of Technical Assistants became Rs. 1,640-2,925 and that of Research Officers was revised to Rs. 2,000-3,500. Later on, i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.1994 scale pay of Technical Assistants (who were re-designated as Assistants Research Officers) was revised to Rs. 2,000-3,500, whereas Research Officers were given the pay-scale of Rs. 2,410-4,000.

It is, however, claimed that the respondents did not allow this scale to the petitioners. It is further averred that scales were not revised pari materia with other Government departments by respondent No. 3 and Technical Assistants were given the pay-scale of Rs. 1,800-3,200 revised from Rs. 1,640-2,950. This was done w.e.f. 21.04.1992. It is claimed that Technical Assistants of respondent No. 3 deserve the pay-scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986, whereas the Research Officer deserve the pay-scale of Rs. 2,410-4,000 w.e.f. 01.01.1994.

This petition was contested tooth and nail by the respondents. It is explained that in fact there is no anomaly. It is claimed that neither qualifications and experience nor job profile and performance of duties of Technical Assistants as also Research Officers, is the same in other departments of the Government as compared to such employees of respondent No. 3. Asserting that there is no parity, prayer for dismissal of the petition was made.

While going through the paper-book, hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties.

It is claimed that the petitioners have been discriminated by the respondents because they have been differently treated than Technical Assistants and Research Officers of other departments in the matters of pay-scales and financial benefits. It is claimed that disparity should be removed. It is averred by the petitioners that when job profile and other requirements of the posts are the same in other departments of the Government, there should not be any discrimination.

As regards, educational qualifications of Technical Assistants with respondent No. 3 and of those who are with Planning Department of the Government, the following chart would reveal that the qualifications required for Technical Assistants of Planning Department are more rigorous and demand higher merit in educational qualifications. The following chart demonstrates this fact:-

Thus for service of respondent No. 3 educational qualification upto graduate is requirement whereas for planning Department, Technical Assistant is required to have at least 50% marks in graduation or marks in Statistics with 50% marks. In case at graduate level, one does not possess 50% marks, then one must possess master degree with Statistics as one of the subjects.

There is nothing to show further by the petitioners that duties and work profile of these Technical Assistants in all the departments including with respondent No. 3, is the same. Similarly, on promotion when Technical Assistants become Research Officers, neither there is similarity of work profile nor in their duties and responsibilities. Thus why such parity should then be demanded in the matter of pay-scales? It then transpires that respondent No. 3 is the statutory body governed by its own service rules called the Punjab State Institutional Finance and Banking (Class-III) Services Rules-1986.

The plea of the petitioners that scale of Technical Assistants requires to be higher than that of normal Assistants in the feeder cadre also fails because neither any promotion of Assistants to Technical Assistants has ever been made nor is contemplated. Rather all the Technical Assistants have been taken by direct recruitment or by transfer and there is none recruited by promotion. In short, Assistants are not eligible for promotion to the post of Technical Assistants even in terms of instructions of 21.04.1992. Thus the Assistants or Senior Assistants do not constitute the feeder cadre for the post of Technical Assistants. When neither Assistants nor Senior Assistants constitute feeder cadre for the post of Technical Assistants, the allegations of anomaly become misnomer.

With regard to the post of Research Officers, the explanation put forth by the respondents is that 50% of Research Officers have been taken by direct recruitment, whereas other 50% are to be taken by promotion for amongst the Technical Assistants having minimum three years experience. It has been explained that nature of duties of Technical Assistants and Research Officers of respondent No. 3, are entirely different as compared to the duties entrusted to Technical Assistants and Research Officers in the department of Planning as also in the department of Economics and Statistical Department, Punjab.

The following chart would explain the difference of work profile and their interest responsibilities:-

Claim of the petitioners is for parity of scales with the scale of pay of Technical Assistants and Research Officers of other departments, denial of which is asserted by the respondents contending that neither qualifications and experience nor role and responsibilities of the two posts are the same as compared to departments of the State of Punjab.

When cases of the respective parties are evaluated on the canvass of facts and circumstances, it transpires that neither the requisite qualifications for these posts are pari materia with the qualifications etc. of such posts in other departments nor there is any parity regarding job profile, role as also responsibility of these posts.

It also remains a fact that neither the pay-scales of Technical Assistants are to be revised from Rs. 2000-3500, nor they have been re-designated as Assistant Research Officers for which they have claimed pay-scales of Rs. 2,410-4,000 instead of Rs. 2000-3500. In fact, pay scale of Planning Department as also of Economic and Statistical Department of the State of Punjab have no parity of scales with the scale of pay of the petitioners and, thus, are of no relevance. When the petitioner have not been able to show any parity either with the qualifications required or regarding mode of recruitment or qua the work profile, role and responsibilities, no advantage can be derived by the petitioners claiming parity. It has not been substantiated by the petitioners that Technical Assistants of respondent No. 3 had ever been connected with Technical Assistants of other departments of State nor there is any parity of Research Officers of respondent No. 3 with such Research Officers of other departments. No parity in salary had ever been in existence nor there is even now.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has made reference to Haryan State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others vs. G.G. Uppal and others, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 506, Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Pensioners'' Association and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2006 (1) S.C.T. 633 (P & H), Yogeshwar Prasad and Others Vs. National Inst., Edu. Planning and Admn. and Others, and Haryana State Biologists Association vs. The State of Haryana 1994 (3) S.C.T. 198 but the authorities cited by the petitioners are on entirely different facts and circumstances, and, thus do not support the cause of the petitioners. Sequelly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.