LPA No. 1857 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1857 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 03, 2011 Achhra Singh …Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Manmohan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.B. Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, ACJ. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 26.08.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant, who is a Driver is not entitled to grant of pay scale equivalent to his counter parts working in the Punjab Civil Secretariat or the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The basic reason adopted by the learned Single Judge for refusing the relief is that merely because the status of the Chairman of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for brevity 'the Commission') has been kept equivalent to the Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, would not lead to a conclusion LPA No. 1857 of 2011 -2- that the Driver and other staff would also be entitled to equivalent pay scale. It has further been held that the appellant was employed on contract basis and his services were purely temporary. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is an ex-serviceman, was given re-employment as Driver on standard terms and conditions of such re-employment in the Commission. There was a clear stipulation that his appointment is purely temporary and his services could be terminated at any time. The appellant was required to supply a pension payment order and last pay certificate in support of his claim that he rendered services in the defence service before joining the post of Driver in the Commission. 3. We have heard Mr. Manmohan Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. He has made two submissions, namely: (A) that the services of the appellant deserves to be regularised and (B) he is entitled to the grant of pay scale of a regular driver. In support of his first contention, learned Senior counsel has submitted that as per policy of regularisation of work charged/ daily wage employees, issued on 23.01.2001 (P-12), the appellant is entitled to regularisation of his services. His further submission is that in any case policy regarding regular appointment of the workers working on contract basis must also be followed. He has also submitted that one Sh. Oppu Maiti has been regularised on a Class IV post as is evident from the order dated 23.02.2004, passed by the Commission (P-9). 4. Having heard learned Senior counsel, we do not feel LPA No. 1857 of 2011 -3- persuaded to accept the submission because policy dated 22.01.2001 and order of regularisation in respect of Sh. Oppu Maiti has been passed before the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Likewise, no benefit of policy dated 18.03.2011 (P-13) could be availed by the appellant. First we have our doubt whether such policy would be applicable to the case of the appellant. Even otherwise, clause 2(i) of the policy clearly postulates that such employees could be considered for regularisation who are working on contractual basis against the permanent post and were selected after scrutiny of their eligibility, qualification and other terms and conditions following the regular procedure and in transparent manner. In other words, they should have been appointed through a valid source like employment exchange/ after inviting applications through advertisement. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appointment of the appellant was made by following the procedure consistent with the provisions of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, no such issue concerning regularisation was raised before the learned Single Judge. In any case, we find no substance in the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior counsel. 5. The other submission that the appellant is entitled to the pay scale equivalent to the pay scale of drivers working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Punjab Civil Secretariat, is equally devoid of merit. Firstly, a Driver working on temporary / contract LPA No. 1857 of 2011 -4- basis cannot seek parity in the pay scale with those who are working on regular basis as has been held in Uma Devi's case (supra). Secondly, merely because the Chairman of the Commission has equal status and rank to the Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, would not lead to a conclusion that drivers are also entitled to equal salary. The hierarchy of promotion, number of posts, nature and hours of duties etc. are all such factors which influence fixing of pay scale of a post. The law is well settled in that regard. Therefore, we are unable to accept even the second submission made by the learned Senior counsel. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE October 03, 2011 Atul