REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.448 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 19, 2010 Harbir Singh Dhillon .....Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant was working as a Clerk in the Advocate General's Office. Long ago, he was transferred to Civil Secretariat on his request, where he joined on 4.8.1981. He continued to maintain his lien on the post in the parent department and was adjusted in the Civil Secretariat in the pay scale of Rs.400-10-450-15-525-15-600. Subsequently, however, the appellant was designated as Junior Assistant in the scale of Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. He was also given promotion in absentia as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 21.1.1991. He, however, continued to work in the Civil Secretariat. The appellant had represented for fixing his pay in the Civil Secretariat, on the basis of promotion earned by him in his parent department. The appellant also gave example of some similarly situated employees whose pay had been so fixed as was REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.448 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: being prayed by him. Once his representation was not accepted, he filed a suit for claiming the necessary relief. The suit was contested and it was pleaded that the appellant was appointed as a Clerk on transfer in the pay scale of Rs.400-600, though he was working as a Senior Clerk in his parent department in the pay scale of Rs.510-800. At the time of his appointment on transfer, it was made clear to him that his pay would be fixed only in the pay scale of Rs.400-600 and no benefit will be allowed to him because of higher pay scale he was getting in the office of Advocate General, Punjab. Appellant had still joined on the condition so offered to him without any protest. Subsequently, he was promoted in the parent department in the pay scale of Rs.1500- 2640/- and also as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 21.1.1991, while he continued to work in the Civil Secretariat. Accordingly, it was pleaded that this claim was not tenable as he was not employee of the defendant-Civil Secretariat. It is pointed out that it was made clear to him that fixation of his pay would not have any relation with the pay which he was drawing in the parent department. It is further pointed out that due to pendency of criminal proceedings against the appellant, he could not be confirmed till he was acquitted of the charges against him or these were dropped. The matter of confirmation was, thus, kept pending in the Punjab Civil Secretariat. It is stated that it was for the appellant to choose whether he wanted to go back to his parent department or to work in the Civil Secretariat in terms of the conditions of appointment as offered to him. As per the respondent, if the appellant was to get any benefit of higher scale on the basis of the pay scale in the parent department, then he could REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.448 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: go back to his parent department. To respond to the plea of discrimination, it is stated that benefit wrongly allowed to one person can not be a ground to perpetuate the wrong in respect of another person as it would then lead to the error being repeated. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that pay of the appellant was required to be fixed in terms of Rule 4.4 (a) (iii) of C.S.R., which was rightly done but is now not being followed. The view taken by the Court that the appellant was taken in the Civil Secretariat on the clear understanding that he would be entitled to the pay scale of a temporary post by fixing him at the maximum and this would have no relationship with the pay that may be payable to him in his parent department is fair and reasonable. Having accepted the term initially, the appellant can not now claim the relief as sought by him. The view taken by the Court is reasonable. The plea of discrimination has also been rightly discussed and appreciated by the Courts. If any benefit is illegally or wrongly allowed to a person that can not be a justifiable ground to seek equation by pleading that this will lead to discrimination. In fact, the benefit illegally granted can not be advanced as a ground to seek the same benefit on the ground that it will lead to discrimination. Accordingly, no case for interference in the view taken by the Courts below is made out. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE