IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: May 4, 2010 CWP No. 2956 of 1992 Prem Lata Sharma ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.O.C.P. No. 1033 of 1992 Prem Lata Sharma …Petitioner Versus Mrs. Gurbinder Chahal and others …Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP No. 2956 of 1992 and C.O.C.P. No. 1033 of 1992. While admitting the writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court on 2.9.1992 has passed interim directions. The petitioner has filed C.O.C.P. No. 1033 of 1992 alleging willful violation of those directions. As the main writ petition was pending, the Contempt Court deemed it appropriate to list the contempt petition also along with the main writ petition. C.W.P. No. 2956 of 1992 & C.O.C.P. No. 1033 of 1992 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, to pay her wages equal to the wages being paid to regular Class-IV employees (Ward Servants). She claimed to be performing the duties of Ward Servant in the same manner as the regular Ward Servants works. The case of the petitioner as per her pleadings is that she was appointed as Ward Servant (Class-IV) w.e.f. 1.11.1984 on temporary basis for a period of 89 days by the Civil Surgeaon, Hoshiarpur (P-1). The period of her service have been extended from time to time and till the date of filing of petition in March, 1992 she was working as such. She has further claimed that she underwent a training for a period of one year with the Punjab Nurses Registration Council and a certificate of being trained Dai was issued by the Registrar, Punjab Nurses Registration Council, Chandigarh (P-2). The petitioner was given regular pay scale of Rs. 300-430 but subsequently on 1.3.1986, she was treated as daily wage employee. Thereafter, from the month of August 1990, she was ordered to be paid on D.C. rates. On 16.10.1991, she made a representation through proper channel to respondent No. 3 with a request for payment of full wages in accordance with the D.C. rates (P-3). On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, has filed the reply admitting that the petitioner was appointed on 89 days with the clear stipulation that her services could be terminated. Respondent No. 3 has denied that the petitioner has been working as Ward Servant and further stated that she looks after 2 C.W.P. No. 2956 of 1992 & C.O.C.P. No. 1033 of 1992 the maintenance of beds only and is being paid the salary as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of letter dated 18.4.1983, sent by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab (R-1). According to the respondents, the petitioner has never worked as Ward Servant. The petitioner also filed an affidavit, dated 19.7.1992, to assert in detail the nature of duties being performed by her which are claimed to be equivalent to the duties performed by regular employees working as Ward Servant. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it has been pointed out that other similarly situated employees like Simro, Bakhsho, Asha, Simmar, Bimla Devi-II, Bimla have been regularised and are paid better salary. No one has appeared in support of the petitioner. Learned State counsel, however, has brought on record a copy of the letter dated 30.6.2009, sent by the Civil Surgeaon, Hoshiarpur, stating that the services of the petitioner stood regularised w.e.f. 31.12.1994 in pursuance of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 15788 of 1996. He has further submitted that there was an interim order in favour of the petitioner, which was passed on 2.9.1992, when the instant petition was admitted. According to the aforesaid order, the services of the petitioner were not to be terminated and she was to be paid salary on the old rates i.e. the minimum rates which were fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. In order to seek implementation of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has also filed C.O.C.P. No. 1033 of 1992. The reply filed by the respondents in the contempt petition shows that she is being paid at 3 C.W.P. No. 2956 of 1992 & C.O.C.P. No. 1033 of 1992 DC rates. In the reply filed by the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur-respondent No. 4, the stand taken is that the petitioner has been paid wages at DC rates for half day. The aforesaid stand has been reiterated by stating that she use to attend office from 9.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. in the winter and from 8.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. in summer. After hearing learned State counsel and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the minimum of the pay scale in the scale of Rs. 300-430 for Class-IV post irrespective of the fact that on which post she was working. A perusal of the appointment letter dated 1.11.1984 (P-1), reveals that she was appointed as Class-IV employee (Ward Servant) on temporary basis for 89 days in the pay scale of Rs. 300-430 at Primary Health Centre, Bhanga (R.D. Hariana). It was thereafter that her job was later on changed but eventually she was regularised on the post of Ward Servant. She has been performing duties as such and, therefore, her pay scale of Rs. 300-430 should not be reduced and she could not be paid less salary. It is, thus, apparent that she is entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the post of Ward Servant in the scale of Rs. 300-430. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to succeed. As a sequel to the above discussion this petition succeeds. The petitioner is held entitled to the payment of her salary in the pay scale of Rs. 300-430 and the revised pay scale w.e.f. 4 C.W.P. No. 2956 of 1992 & C.O.C.P. No. 1033 of 1992 1.1.1986. The arrears be calculated for a period of three years two months from the date preceding the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 3.3.1992 till the date of her regularisation i.e. 31.12.1994. The calculated amount be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The contempt petition was directed against the alleged violation of the interim order dated 2.9.1992. In view of the fact that directions have now been issued and there was no intentional violation, the contempt petition is disposed off. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file any other proceedings against the respondents if the direction issued by this Court in the instant petition are not complied with. The writ petition as well as the contempt petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) May 4, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 5