LPA No. 139 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 139 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: .01.2010 Karnail Singh and others. ....Appellants. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present appeal, order dated 20.7.2005 passed by learned Single Judge thereby dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.3462 of 1987, is being assailed. 2. Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition filed by Mechanics claiming equal pay with Inspectors in Haryana Roadways. In nutshell, case of the appellants is that they were posted as mechanics. Earlier upto 1.4.1979, pay of Mechanics was equal to the pay of Inspectors i.e. Rs.140-250. Grade was revised to that of Rs.420- 700 w.e.f. 1.4.1979. However, thereafter pay scale of Inspectors was modified to Rs.525-900 (Time scale) and 525-1050 (Selection Grade for LPA No. 139 of 2006 2 20% posts) w.e.f. 1.2.1981. Whereas the Fitters and Mechanics etc. continued to be placed in the same scale i.e. Rs.420-700. According to the appellants, this is discrimination with them and they are also entitled to the same modified and upgraded pay scales as were granted to the Inspectors. 3. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has observed as under:- “A perusal of the educational qualifications as well as the duties of Inspectors, Fitters and Mechanics would show that there is no parity in the educational qualifications and duties of the Inspectors on the one side and the Fitters and Mechanics on the other. The Inspectors are much more qualified and perform duties of higher responsibility as compared to the qualifications and duties of the Fitters and Mechanics etc. Whereas the duties of Inspectors are to check the buses and detect frauds being committed by the conductors, the duties of the Fitters and Mechanics is only to repair buses. The Inspectors are graduates (by direct recruitment). On the other hand the Fitters and Mechanics are only Matric pass with I.T.I. Certificate. In para No.2 of the written statement the respondents have mentioned the criterion when an anomaly in the scale of pay said to have occurred. The said criterion is reproduced herein under for ready reference:- a) When the pay scales are revised by the Government through a general pay revision notification for all its employees and the revised scales are not prescribed in respect of some posts/departments on account of LPA No. 139 of 2006 3 inadvertent omission. b) When the functional pay scale prescribed for a promotion post is lower than the functional pay scale of the feeder post. c) Where there is a loss of pay in the case of an employee on account of revision of pay scales. d) Where on promotion, an employee draws lower emoluments than what he was drawing prior to his promotion. e) Where the pay of a senior employee of the cadre gets fixed at a lower stage as a consequence of pay revision qua a similarly situated junior employee. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners and the respective posts, the scales of which they have claimed, are not on the same cadre. No inter se comparison or parity between the posts held by the petitioners and the respective posts, the pay scales of which they have claimed. In view of the criterion stipulated above, for bringing the case within the frame-work of 'an anomaly' the petitioners are not covered at all.” 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that since from the very inception, pay scale of Mechanics/Fitters was equal with Inspectors, there was no justification for the respondents to revise the pay scales of Inspectors only. 6. Qualifications prescribed for Inspectors and Fitters are as LPA No. 139 of 2006 4 under:- “1. Inspectors Direct Recruitment By Promotion E.Q. (i) Graduate (i) Matriculation with Hindi (ii) At least two years (ii)Five years experience experience in motor as Sub-Inspector in Road Transport in a Haryana Roadways. Govt. or Semi Govt. or Public undertaking. Duties:- (i) To check the buses and detect the fraud cases committed by the conductors with the officers and independently. (ii) To watch the bus operation at bus stand and to check the buses in order to detect without ticket passengers. 2. Fitters E.Q. Direct By Promotion (i) Matric with Hindi (i) Middle with Hindi (ii) I.T.I. certificate in (ii) 3 years experience as Fitter/Technician Trade. Asstt. Fitter. Duties:- To undertake repairs of buses. Duties of Mechanics:- To undertake repairs of buses.” 7. From the perusal of the qualifications, it would be revealed that more qualified persons are required for the post of Inspectors and duty of Inspectors is to check the buses and to ensure the operation of buses as per the time-table, while duty of Fitters/Mechanics is technical, for which altogether different qualification is required. Both the posts are not interchangeable. In view of this, no parity can be claimed by the appellants with Inspectors. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the LPA No. 139 of 2006 5 judgment in Babu Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 2000(5) SLR 353. In Babu Ram's case (supra), post was interchangeable, while in the present case, post is not interchangeable. Hence, the ratio of Babu Ram's case (supra) is not applicable in the present case. The case of Kulwant Rai Vs. State of Punjab, 1994(3) RSJ 107 is also pressed into service by learned counsel for the appellants. In Kulwant Rai's case (supra), English teachers were treated at par with Masters/Mistresses of the Education Department. Duties of Teachers or Masters were the same, hence, in view of peculiar facts, the Court has held that discrimination between the incumbents of two posts for the grant of pay scales at the time of revision of pay scales, is not reasonable. 8. As observed hereinabove, both the posts i.e. Mechanics and Inspectors are not interchangeable, their qualifications are different, their duties are also different. Hence, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge .01.2010 sk.