IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6706-CAT of 2005 Date of Decision: April 23, 2008 Krishan Lal and others …Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.C. Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sheokand, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 20.4.2004 (P-15), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), on the ground that only those employees who have filed various writ petitions in this Court have been granted revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989 and that the Punjab Government has not issued notification for grant of revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989, which is contrary to the Punjab C.W.P. No. 6706-CAT of 2005 Government Notification dated 17.7.2002 (P-13) as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Murti and others v. State of Punjab and others (C.W.P. No. 15920 of 1995, decided on 13.2.1996, Annexure P-7) which has attained finality as the SLP (Civil) No. 13167 of 1996, has been dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, vide order dated 21.4.1997 (P-8). A further prayer has been made for commanding Chandigarh Administration- respondent No. 2 to re-consider and grant revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989, keeping in view the law laid down by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Murti’s case (supra) and judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Punjab v. Bhupinder Singh, 2004 (2) RSJ 638 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Rama Krishan, 2000 (1) SCT 347, wherein it has been held that once pay parity has been maintained the same could not be disturbed on revision of pay scale. Still further it has been prayed that benefit of retrospective pay scales may also be given to the petitioners as has been given to the similarly situated employees of the State of Punjab, especially when the respondent Chandigarh Administration has decided to grant same pay scales to its Workshop category employees as has been granted to the Punjab Roadways Workshop Category employees. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we find that the controversy involved in the instant petition i.e. grant of higher pay 2 C.W.P. No. 6706-CAT of 2005 scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989 is not res integra. The order dated 20.4.2004 (P-15) passed by the Tribunal was also subject matter of challenge in C.W.P. No. 6707-CAT of 2005 (Kanhaya Lal and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal and another). The said petition came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court on 11.2.2008 and the following order has been passed:- “ The petitioners, who are employees of Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, have prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant them the benefit of enhanced pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989. In support of their claim, the petitioners have placed reliance upon the decision in Haryana Adhyapak Sangh vs. State of Haryana etc. AIR 1988 SC 1663 and also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Haryana State Biological Association vs. State of Haryana and others 1994 (2) SLR 389. Claim of the petitioners for grant of higher pay scale has not been seriously contested. It is, therefore, submitted that as the pay scales of the petitioners have already been revised w.e.f. 3.11.1989, they are not entitled to the grant of their relief as prayed for, since they did not take any action after they were not given the enhanced scales in the year 1986. It is further submitted that the relief, if any, be moulded in such a way that the State Exchequer is not unnecessarily burdened. 3 C.W.P. No. 6706-CAT of 2005 In view of the pleadings of the parties and the settled proposition of law on the basis of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners shall be deemed to have been granted the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989. However, they shall not be paid the arrears of the difference of pay scales, but will be entitled to all other consequential benefits.” The controversy raised in the instant petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 11.2.2008, passed in the case of Kanhaya Lal (supra). Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kanhaya Lal (supra). The petitioner shall be deemed to have been granted the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989. However, they shall not be paid the arrears of the difference of pay scales but will be entitled to all other consequential benefits. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) April 23, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4