413 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 5 t CHANDIGARH LPA N41 of2005 Date ofdecision 3 32010 StateofHaryanaand another eAppellant Vs C DilbagRai Manocha and others 0 C C5 CORAM2 HONBLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HONBLE MR JUSTICE ALOK SINGH I Presente Mr Ravi Dutt Sharma DAG Haryanafor the Z m Mr RajMohan SinghAdvocatefor the e Adarsh Kumar Goel J I 08 1 This appealhasbeen r VA of leamedSingleJudge the writ petitionofthe Z Il for pay scale and selectiongradeat par with other VillageExtension Workers 6Gram who were givenbenefits ln terms of order of Honble the Court dated2471979 Annexure P 2 Case of the 1S that they were workingas Sub lIl and were as Village Extension SURESH KUMAR 2014.09.30 11: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 414 NoAl of2005 OceM9 2 Workersunder World Bank Loan Scheme AnnexureP 0 450 as Gram Sewaks were also to work ln the same proJecton same The Stategave a promlse thattheywill be givenpayscales mentionedin the letterof the StateGovemmentnoticed 111 e C the aboveorder of Honble the Court On denial 0 oftheir claim theHonble Court vide orderdated C I C5 2471999 held thatthe Statewas boundbythe doctrineof I promlssory and directed the promiseto be Z honoured Accordinglyorder dated 21 1980 Annexure C PA was passed111 favour of Gram Sachivs who were I 08 to work as VillageExtensionWorkers OIl proJect r10 m AnnexureP1 The writ claimedparitywith the Z tl said Gram Sewaks Matter was referredto Lok Adalat The Lok Adalat allowed the claim on thegroundthat natureof work beingsame the were entitled to parity The order was not passedby consent and was putup for before learned SingleJudgeln vlew of ofthe State Learned SingleJudgeheld that once two of were broughtin one cadre theycould not be discriminatedagainstln the matter of SURESH KUMAR 2014.09.30 11: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 415 NoAl of2005 085Ml 3 PYe the claim of the was 0 allowed RelevantflndingrecordedbylearnedSingleJudge lS as under 4er learned counsel for the partiesI am ofthe consideredview that once two of like Gram 1 Sewaks and the 0 Sub have 0 I been broughtln one cadre of Village C3 Extension Workers there cannot be any I further discriminationon the basis of their Z birth marks The beneflt givento one 0 of namely Gram I Sewaksbyorderofthe Court dated 08 r 2431979 would also enure to the as theyare situated 99 2 Z 3e We haveheardlearnedcounselfor the partiesand therecord 4 Learnedcounselfor the submittedthat the writ were of itself and were in the regularpay scale Merely because they were to work lll the projectas VillageExtension Workers theycould not be held to be SURESH KUMAR 2014.09.30 11: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 416 NoAl of200560Ml 4 I ll entitled to higherpay scale on the that persons C takenon from Gram Sachivswere givenhigher pay scale Theywere to work on a projectand never becamepartof any cadre Theycould not claim paritywith Gram Sachivswho were from different 1 and both were never in a r 0 cadre The projectcame to an end lIl the year 1993 C AnnexureP1 was a and no rightaccrued C I to the therefrom Z 5 Learned counselfor the writ support the I 08 6 for consideration1S whether the writ petltloners are entitledto paritywith Gram Sachivsin the m7 Z matter of pay scale etc on the groundthat theyformed Qm partofcadre ofVillageExtensionWorkers 7 We flnd that thoughlearned SingleJudgehas on the that both the classes Gram Sachivsand Sub formed one cadre we do not find sufflcientmaterial on recordfor this Only materialon record 1S project Annexure Pl which doesnot providefor constitution of a cadre Conceptof project1S ilJ SURESH KUMAR 2014.09.30 11: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 417 NoAl of2005608M9 5 differentfrom that of cadre However the said project 0 for incentivesto both the Sub as well as Gram Sachivsand on that basis the seek parityln vlew of order of Honble the Court in the case of Gram Sachivswhich claim 1 C has to be considered We are of the Vlew that lIl the 0 C circumstances ofthe case it will be in the interestofjustice CA9 that the matter 1S to be consideredafreshby the I to Government who Z a m maytake a decision within threemonthsfrom receiptof Cl copy of this order If the are not satisfled they 08 will be at libertyto take their remedyin accordancewith CO V7 1aw Z tl 8 The appeal is 9 e9 ldarsh Ktimar Goe Judge ok March 03 2010 Alok Singh gs Judge 4 ICO CA SURESH KUMAR 2014.09.30 11: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document