CWP No.12333 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.12333 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: October 22, 2008 JAGPAL SINGH & OTHERS ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA. PRESENT: MR. S.K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. MR. B.S. CHAHAL, DAG, PUNJAB. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) All the petitioners are employees of Mohindra Chaudhary Chhatbir Zoo, District Patiala. They have prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to grant all the benefits and privileges to the petitioners which are allowed to the Intra Transferable staff working in the office of Department of Forests, Punjab. It has been averred that there are 52 off Saturday and Sundays, therefore, the petitioners be given additional salary in respect of such gazetted holidays which the petitioners are made to work in the Zoo. It is the case of the petitioners that they work on Saturdays whereas, the employees working in the office in Forest Department are given holiday on Saturdays. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 wherein the stand of the respondents is as follows:- “The petitioners are not similarly situated and their nature of duties are not same as that of officials working in the offices of the respondents. Petitioners belong to field staff, therefore, their service conditions are different from the employees who CWP No.12333 of 2007 -2- are posted in the offices. The petitioners are being granted holidays as are admissible to the field staff under the rules as applicable to the employees of State of Punjab. It is pertinent to mention here that that the “Field staff of the department” with whom they are claiming to discharge same duties, had filed a CWP No.16375 of 2004 namely Punjab Non Gazetted Foresters Union V/s State of Punjab, Haryana, U.O.I. & Others on similar grounds claiming the same benefits. In this petition, this Hon'ble Court was pleaded to order that a speaking order may be passed by the govt. to dispose off their legal notice pending with govt. The govt. of Punjab has rejected their claim inter-alia stating as under: “...The State Govt. had already examined the matter while making recommendations of 4th pay commission in chapter 88 of its report. While the pay commission had recommended one month additional pay in a year for Police Inspector, Sub Inspector, Assistant Sub Inspector, Head Constable and Constable in lieu of performing duties on gazetted holidays, however, no such recommendation has been made by the commission in respect of Forest Ranger, Deputy Rangers, Foresters and Forest Guards. The executive Govt,. which has also been declared as expert body by the Apex Court in matter of revision of pay scales and allowances, also did not make any order for extending this benefit to the members of the union...” It is worth mentioning here that the petitioner No.1 Sh. Jagpal Singh is a Forester by rank and is directly covered CWP No.12333 of 2007 -3- by the above speaking order (Annexure R-2) whereas other petitioners are indirectly covered as they are similarly placed and are claiming the same benefits. The facts and circumstances of both these cases are exactly identical.” In view of the facts as narrated in the writ petition and the stand taken by the respondents, it is clear that the petitioners who are field staff perform different nature of duties and their service conditions are different to those of persons who are working in office. They are covered by Rule 3.10 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which reads as under:- “Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided the whole time of a Govt. employee is at the disposal of the Govt. which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority, without claim or additional remuneration, whether the services required of him are such as would ordinarily be remunerated from Union or State revenues, or from the revenues of local fund.” In view of the aforementioned Rule, the petitioners are not entitled to claim Saturday and Sunday as off days, nor the petitioners are entitled to additional salary in lieu thereof. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 22, 2008 (RAJAN GUPTA) Gulati JUDGE