C.W.P No. 3818 of 1992 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 3818 of 1992 Date of decision : February 18, 2009 Mohinder Lal and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. G.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.420-700 w.e.f 1.4.1979 as well as corresponding pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f 1.1.1986 on the ground that the same have been granted to persons similarly situated like the petitioners. As far as the prayer of granting pay scale of Rs.420-700 is concerned, I find that the same is barred by delay and laches and consequently is rejected. C.W.P No. 3818 of 1992 ::2:: As regards the claim of pay scale of Rs.1200-2040, the case of the petitioners is that the said scale was given to other Supervisors who, like the petitioners, did not have the qualification of ITI. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in CWP No.16103 of 1997, decided on 5.2.1999, wherein it was held as follows :- “ The petitioner were directly recruited to the post of work Supervisors in the respondent-department. They do not hold the certificate in ITI as it was not in the requirement for the post when the petitioners were so recruited between the years 1980 to 1982. The said post can also be filled by promotion from amongst time Clerks and store Munshi who may not be ITI Certificate holder. The pay scale of the promoted work Supervisors who were/are holding the qualifications of ITI was Rs.1200-2040. The same pay scale was also given to the promoted Supervisors though they may not be holding ITI Certificate if they had otherwise attained the eligibility for promotion. The promotion was done after the incumbent had put in a particular years of service in the feeder cadre. The same pay scale was also given to the petitioners, who were direct recruits but are not ITI certificate holders. This pay scale was sought to be withdraw from them on the ground that they did not hold the ITI certificate and are direct recruits. The question that arises before us is can the State government discriminate so far as the question of C.W.P No. 3818 of 1992 ::3:: pay scale is concerned between a direct recruit and a promotee having the same qualification and performing the identical duties. It is not disputed before us that the petitioners as well as promotee non-ITI certificate holders perform identical duties. Can then there be different pay scales on the basis of source of recruitment when a direct recruit as well as a promotee has the same qualifications and are performing identical duties ? In our view, the answer has to be in the negative.......” The only difference between the present case and the case quoted above is that in the said case pay scale was granted and was sought to be withdrawn subsequently whereas in the present case, the petitioners are claiming the same grade. Counsel for the respondents on the contrary has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder Singh, 2007(4) SCT 628, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “6. The principle of equal pay for equal work has gone a sea change. Earlier the view of this Court was that if two persons are discharging the same functions, they will be entitled to same wages. Subsequently this view has been changed and now the view of this Court is that there should be complete and total identity between the two persons similarly situated so as to grant equal pay for equal work. Recently this Court has held that identity between two persons has to be complete and total. In C.W.P No. 3818 of 1992 ::4:: case of a regular appointee, he has undergone a selection process and his services are regular. Even if a daily wage employee is discharging the same functions as a regular employee the authorities are not bound to grant equal pay to such a person who is appointed on daily wage basis i.e is appointed for a short term and has not faced the selection process. Thus, the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be granted only if there is a total and complete identity between the two persons. In this view, we are supported by a decision of this Court in the case of S.C.Chandra and others vs. State of Jharkhand & others, 2007(4) SCT 76, which has referred to earlier decisions of this Court.” In my opinion, the position of law expounded in the above judgment can be profitably used in favour of the petitioners. It must be noticed that the said decision was rendered in a case where daily wage employees were seeking identical pay scales as regular employees on the ground of identity of work. In the present case, the petitioners are also regularly appointed Supervisors as compared to promotee supervisors, both of whom do not possess the qualification of ITI. Thus, in my opinion there is complete identity between the petitioners and such promotee supervisors. The fact that the petitioners are directly appointed while the persons with whom they are seeking parity are promotees would not in my opinion take away the common identity since both set of employees are working as regular Supervisors in the same department. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents C.W.P No. 3818 of 1992 ::5:: are directed to grant pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 to the petitioners w.e.f 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits. Considering the fact that this writ petition has been pending since 1992, it is directed that necessary relief be granted to the petitioners within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the came is not granted within three months, the petitioners would be entitled to interest @ 8% on the arrears from the date of accrual till the date of actual payment. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 18, 2009. JUDGE `kk'