State of Punjab and others vs Harpal Singh and others

A.K. Sikri, C.J.—The nature of order which we propose to pass does not call for stating the facts in detail. Succinctly put, the respondents were appointed as Pump Operators and were given pay scale of Rs. 100-160/-. As per the First Pay Commission''s report, they demanded the pay scale of Rs. 140-300/-. Writ petition was filed by them for this relief, inter alia, stating that such a relief to identically situated persons had already been granted by the learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 10759 of 1990 titled as Rajinder Pal Gautam and Others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 30.5.2008. This judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No. 44 of 2009, decided on 15.2.2010 (titled: State of Punjab and others vs. Rajinder Paul Gautam and Others). Case of the petitioners in Rajinder Pal Gautam (supra) was that they were appointed as Pump Operators in Public Health Department, Punjab, between 1967 to 1980 and were given unrevised pay scale of Rs. 110-180/-. In the report of the Pay Commission submitted in 1968, recommendations were made for making categories as per qualifications for grant of pay scales and for Category IV (in respect of Qualification of Matric with two years Technical Training from recognized Institute), scale of Rs. 140-300/- was recommended by the Deputy Secretary, PWD in letter dated 4.2.1969 and in letter dated 25.4.1990 by the Chief Engineer. Since the said pay scale was not accepted, writ petition was filed in this Court in the year 1990. The State contested the claim of the petitioners on the ground that no rules have been finalized as per recommendation of the Commission and, thus, the scale recommended could not be given. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition in respect of persons having the prescribed qualification, holding that once the writ petitioners had the necessary qualification for pay scale of Rs. 140-300/-, as mentioned above, there was no reason not to follow the recommendation of the Pay Commission, when for some similarly placed employee, the said scale had been allowed. Reliance was placed on judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Purshottam Lal and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and Laljee Dubey and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, to the effect that discrimination was not permissible in the course of implementation of recommendations. Relevant finding recorded by learned single Judge is as under:-

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the pay scales have been linked since 1969 with the educational qualification and all other categories like Fitters, Electricians, Carpenters, Masons, Operators, Drivers, well Borer and Rock Drillers, etc., have been granted benefit of higher pay scale of Rs. 140-300, there is no reason to segregate the category of the petitioners for refusing grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 140-300.

The Division Bench while affirming the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge, gave the following reasons:

The question for consideration is whether on the basis of material on record writ petitioners have a right to the pay scale in question. Answer has to be in the affirmative for the reasons that follow.

It is not disputed that recommendations were made in the year 1967-68 i.e. more than 40 years ago. There is no reason for the State not to have taken any decision in the matter while granting the scale in question to similarly placed persons in categories other than Pump Operators. As per recommendations, Annexure P.206 dated 30.05.2003, the Chief Engineers also recommended acceptance of claim of the petitioners.

In such circumstances, objection that recommendation of Pay Commission cannot be per se acted upon or that Court cannot go into the question of equation of pay, cannot be upheld. Recommendation of the Commission has been accepted by the State for other categories without holding that Pump Operators were a different class. Plea of financial implication is taken care of by statement of learned counsel for the petitioners not to press for arrears.

The claim of the writ petitioners for scale corresponding to the scale of Rs. 140-300, is thus, clearly made out. Since claim for arrears has been given up and is also held to be otherwise unacceptable, the State is liable to be directed to pass appropriate order effective from today. The impugned judgment will stand modified accordingly. The State may pass appropriate orders from grant of corresponding scale from today, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The aforesaid judgment has been implemented. In fact, number of other writ petitions have been allowed by this Court following this judgment. Likewise, in the instant case as well, learned single Judge has followed the dicta in Rajinder Pal Gautam''s case (supra) and given the relief in identical terms. Following directions in the decision dated 30.5.2008 referred by learned single Judge in Rajinder Pal Gautam (supra), may be adverted to:

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioners who have qualifications of ITI of two years diploma course with matriculation and have been working on the post of Pump Operators are held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 140-300 w.e.f. the date they have joined the service. Their pay shall be fixed in the scale of Rs. 140-300 from the aforementioned date but the arrears would be restricted to a period of 38 months preceding the date of filing of the petition which has been filed on 8.8.1990. We make it clear that those petitioners who do not possess the qualification of two years ITI diploma course and matriculation would not be entitled to the afore-mentioned relief.

Up to this extent, there is no quarrel. In the present appeal filed by the State, however, it is pointed out that in the case of Rajinder Pal Gautam itself, some of such Pump Operators, who did not possess two years course in Diesel Mechanic, but were possessing one year course in the said discipline were denied the relief. Along with this appeal, copy of the office orders No. 450 dated 14.12.2011 is filed wherein it is mentioned that as per the judgment in Rajinder Pal Gautam''s case (supra), only those Pump Operators, who were otherwise having qualification of two years ITI diploma with matric, were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 140-300/- and it was also specifically ordered that those Pump Operators, who do not possess the qualification of two years ITI Diploma Course and matriculation would not be entitled to the scale of Rs. 140-300/-. It was found that Yash Paul, who was petitioner No. 3 in CWP-5599-2011, had qualification of 8th Class with one year Course in Diesel Mechanic only and was, therefore, not entitled to pay scale of Rs. 140-300/-. Rejecting his claim, order dated 14.12.2011 stipulated as under:-

And whereas the petitioner No. 3 Yash Paul, of CWP No. 5599 of 2011 possesses qualification of 8th Class with 1 year course in Diesel Mechanic only. Thus, it is clear that Sh. Yash Pal son of Sh. Kaithu Ram does not possess the required qualification as per the decision given in LPA No. 44 of 2009 by the Hon''ble High Court. Accordingly, he is not entitled to the scale of Rs. 140-300.

Now therefore, keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances of the present case, the claim of the petitioner No. 3, Sh. Yash Paul s/o Sh. Kaithu Ram, of CWP No. 5599 of 2011 for grant of the scale of Rs. 140-300 as per recommendation of 2nd Pay Commission is hereby rejected.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, was that this aspect was not even gone into by learned single Judge in the present case and the relief was granted to respondents herein even when they were not having requisite qualification. It was argued that petitioner No. 9 Shri Kiran Parkash is only Work Munshi and is not possessing the prescribed qualification of Pump Operator i.e. Matriculation with two years ITI certification. Likewise, respondents No. 1 to 8 and 10 are possessing qualification of matriculation with one year certificate from ITI.

On behalf of learned counsel for the respondents, it was tried to argue that the orders dated 14.12.2011 are contemptuous in nature and further that many orders are passed thereafter giving benefit even to those who did not have qualification of two years diploma through ITI with matriculation, but were having only one year course.

It is, however, not necessary to go into this aspect by us. We find that the matter needs consideration as the issue has not been decided by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. On this ground alone, we set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the learned Single Judge. We make it clear that this Bench has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. It would be open to both the sides to press their respective contentions and the writ Court shall decide the same in accordance with law.