C.W.P No. 14688 of 1995(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 14688 of 1995(O&M) Date of decision : August 05, 2010 Computers' Association, Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab Office of Director, Health and Family Welfare Punjab and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Punjab and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S Gill, DAG Punjab for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) By this writ petition, the petitioners claim equation of their pay scales with their counterparts, namely, Investigators (previously designated as Computers), Statistical Assistants and Technical Assistants (now designated as Research Assistants) of the Economic and Statistical Organization, Punjab. The grounds taken are that petitioners No.2 to 114 are working C.W.P No. 14688 of 1995(O&M) ::2:: as Computers, petitioners No.115 to 137 as Statistical Assistants, petitioners No. 138, 139, 141 and 142 as Superintendent (Statistics), petitioner No.140 as Assistant Statistician, and the remaining petitioners viz petitioners No.143 to 149 are working as Junior Statistical Nosologist in the Health Department, Punjab. They claim that the nature of their duties and qualifications are similar to their counterparts, viz., Investigators (previously designated as Computers), Statistical Assistants and Technical Assistants (now designated as Research Assistants) of the Economic and Statistical Organization, Punjab. It is further pleaded that right from the Ist Punjab Pay Commission, their pay scales were equated. However, after the Third Punjab Pay Commission, during the year 1988-89, the pay scales of their counterparts were revised retrospectively w.e.f 1.1.1986. The petitioners represented that they should also be given the same benefit and, when it did not elicit desired response, they filed the present writ petition. On 20.7.2010, the following order was passed :- “ Learned DAG seeks a short adjournment to find out whether the pay scale of the petitioners has been again equated with the similarly situated employees of E.S.O., Punjab as per the recommendations of the Fifth Punjab Pay Commission. Adjourned to 28.7.2010.” Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Ms. Sarita, Senior Assistant in the office of the Director Health Punjab, has informed the Court that again in the Fourth and Fifth Punjab Pay Commissions, the pay scales of the petitioners have been equated with their counterparts in the Economic and Statistical Organization. C.W.P No. 14688 of 1995(O&M) ::3:: Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the chronology of equation clearly reveals that the challenge to the refusal to equate was well founded. It was because of their representations that the subsequent Punjab Pay Commissions again restored the parity. He has further argued that it would be in the interest of justice, if parity is granted to the petitioners for the period of time when their pay scales were not equated. Counsel for the respondents has stated that fixation of pay scales being an expert job, it would not be in the province of this Court to tinker with it. In my opinion, as a general rule, the principle urged by counsel for the respondents cannot be held to be unacceptable. However, the distinguishing feature of this case is that it was not the expert body (Pay Commission) which decided to give lower pay scales to the petitioners but a subsequent revision by the Punjab Government which had resulted in inequality. It would be seen that the reason put forth while rejecting the representation of the petitioners is that the qualifications for the posts of the petitioners in the Health Department and those of the Economic and Statistical Organization are different. However, after rejecting the prayer of the petitioners, the competent authority further mentioned as follows :- “ However, since the State Government has already constituted the fourth Punjab Pay Commission on 21.7.1994 all matters relating to the grant of revision of pay scale etc. of all categories of the State Government employees will be considered by the pay commission. The matter regarding revision of pay scales of the C.W.P No. 14688 of 1995(O&M) ::4:: petitioners is also referable to the pay Commission. Thus the representation dated 16th June, 1994 of the petitioners seeking pay parity with the personnel of the cadre of the Economics & Statistical Organization is being referred to the Fourth Pay Commission for consideration.” The inescapable conclusion which can be drawn from the above quoted paragraphs is that even the government was not sure of its own stand and that is the reason that the representation of the petitioners was referred to the Fourth Punjab Pay Commission. However, as mentioned above, the parity which was rejected by the first three Punjab Pay Commissions has thereafter been restored by the Fourth Punjab Pay Commission. Thus, as far as the expert body is concerned, there is unanimity in all the Pay Commissions that the pay scales of the petitioners should be equal to those of the similar categories of employees in the Economic and Statistical Organization. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant pay scales of Rs.950-1800 (with an initial start of Rs.1000/-) w.e.f 1.1.1986 instead of 1.10.1991, Rs. 1200-2130 and Rs.1500-2700 w.e.f 1.1.1994 to the Computers/Statistical Clerks, revised pay scales of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f 1.1.1994 to the Statistical Assistants, Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f 1.1.1986 and Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f 1.1.1994 to the Superintendents(Statistics)/Assistant Statisticians/Junior Statistical Nosologists (petitioners) as was granted to similar situated employees of the Economic and Statistical Organization, Punjab. Two months' time is granted to the respondents to work out the consequential benefits which may accrue to the petitioners from this benefit. The same may be released C.W.P No. 14688 of 1995(O&M) ::5:: within a period of one month thereafter. However, the petitioners would not be entitled to any arrears, but if some of the petitioners have already got them as informed by counsel for the petitioners, no recovery be made from them. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 05, 2010. JUDGE `kk'