C.W.P. No. 16007 of 1993 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. C.W.P. No. 16007 of 1993 Baldev Singh and others ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents 2. C.W.P. No. 1720 of 1994 Magar Singh and others ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents 3. C.W.P. No. 2526 of 1994 Bhag Singh and others ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents 4. C.W.P. No. 2523 of 1994 Bakhataur Singh and others ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents DATE OF DECISION: 05.09.2011 BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. L.S. Virk, DAG, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 16007 of 1993, C.W.P. No. 16007 of 1993 (2) 1720,2526 and 2523 of 1994 as the facts and the issue involved in all the cases is the same. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 16007 of 1993. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuing directions to the respondents to grant the pay scale of ` 510-940 w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and the corresponding revised grade of ` 1350-2400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 along with all consequential benefits arising therefrom. The case of the petitioners is that originally they were appointed as Chargeman on workcharge basis and thereafter were promoted as Dragline Operator on workcharge basis and subsequently were regularized. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were performing the duties of Dragline Operators and their case was also recommended on various occasions for grant of pay scale given to Dragline Operators but the same was not given. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that on the basis of representations made by the petitioners, their case was also recommended by Executive Engineer but no action was taken on the same. Neither any order of acceptance nor rejection was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is a specific entry in the service books with regard to their appointment on the post of Dragline Operators and keeping in view their work on the post of Dragline Operator their cases were recommended by the senior officers of the Department to the Government. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment in LPA No. 663 of 1993 passed on 5.12.2001 in support his contention. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the claim of the petitioners and contends that since the petitioners were working on the post of Operator, therefore, are not entitled for the pay scale which was given to the Dragline Operators. There is no record with regard to the C.W.P. No. 16007 of 1993 (3) working of the petitioners on the posts of Dragline Operators. The cases of the petitioners were never recommended for grant of pay scale of Dragline Operators and moreover there was no sanctioned posts of Dragline Operators with Department. Only the request for re-designation of the post of Operators to the posts of Dragline Operators was made and except that there was no record with the respondent-Department or with the petitioners also, which shows that the petitioners were performing the duties of Dragline Operators and in absence of any sanctioned posts, the petitioners cannot claim pay scale of Dragline Operators. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the judgment in aforesaid LPA is not applicable to the case of the petitioners as distinction is there as in that case only one employee, namely, Gurmeet Singh was allowed the pay scale of Dragline Operator and that too only on the basis of some record. In the case of the present petitioners no such record is there and the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of higher post only because of some wrong entry, whereas, in whole of the service record there is no such entry till retirement and except petitioner No.17 (Balkar Singh) all the petitioners have already retired. The record of the case was called and the same including the service book has been perused. There is no other record with regard to taking any action on the recommendation sent by the Executive Engineer. Learned counsel for the State submits that recommendations sent by the Executive Engineer was not accepted by the State Government. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners on the basis of recommendation as well as other material with the Department whether the petitioners have been working as Operators or Dragline Operators. The C.W.P. No. 16007 of 1993 (4) necessary order be passed within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. September 05, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE