CWP No.17763 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 17763 of 2002 Date of Decision: 9 - 9 - 2010 Nirmal Kishore and another ....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sanjay K. Guevera, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.T.S.Gujral, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and impugned order dated 3.2.1999, Annexure P13, passed by the Director, Local Government, Punjab, whereby he annulled resolution No.300 dated 28.8.1997 passed by respondent No.3- Municipal Council, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter to be referred as, `Municipal Council') be quashed. The grievance of the petitioners is that Municipal Council passed a resolution and granted designation of Work Supervisor to the CWP No.17763 of 2002 [2] petitioners but this proposal was not accepted by the Director, Local Government, Punjab and approval was not granted to the resolution. Briefly stated, the petitioners had joined the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as, `PSIEC') as T-Mate on 5.11.1976 and 20.9.1976 respectively. On 19.9.1991, they were promoted as Work Inspector by the PSIEC. In the PSIEC, the Work Inspector could be appointed either by way of direct recruitment or by promotion. The petitioners who were working as T-Mates and having 10 years experience as such at their credit, with necessary qualification of Matriculation, were promoted as Work Inspectors. It is stated that services of the petitioners were transferred by the PSIEC to Notified Area Committee, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) which later became as Municipal Council. When the petitioners were transferred to the Notified Area Committee, there was no post of Work Inspector. However, the pay of the petitioners was protected. The grievance of the petitioners is that there is an equivalent post of Work Supervisor and the petitioners who were working as Work Inspector should have been allowed to perform the duties of Work Supervisor. At the relevant time, even the pay scale of Work Inspector and Work Supervisor was different. The Work Supervisor was getting the salary in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/-, whereas the Work Inspector was placed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-. It is stated that on 28.8.1997, Municipal Council passed resolution No.300, copy of which is attached as Annexure P4, resolving that petitioners had made a representation that they be made Work Supervisors and the Committee unanimously resolved that designation of the petitioners be changed from Work Inspector to Work Supervisor but they shall not be granted the pay CWP No.17763 of 2002 [3] scale of Work Supervisor. Thereafter, the Municipal Council passed another resolution No.370 on 24.3.1998 and resolved that the petitioners, who were earlier granted the designation of Work Supervisors, be given the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/-. After the acceptance of recommendations of the Pay Commission, their pay scale was further revised to Rs.5000-8100/-. The Director, Local Government, Punjab held that the Municipal Council was not well within its rights to change the designation of the petitioners from Work Inspector to Work Supervisor. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the duties assigned and performed by the Work Inspector and Work Supervisor are identical, therefore, in the Municipal Council, two persons who are performing similar duties cannot be granted different pay scales and different nomenclature. I am not impressed by this argument advanced by counsel for the petitioners, as qualification, mode of recruitment and the pay scale of Work Inspector and Work Supervisor are different. The method adopted by the Municipal Council, first they changed the nomenclature of Work Inspector to Work Supervisor and later grant of the higher pay scale amounts to granting largesse in the manner which is not in consonance with rules and regulations. For appointing anybody as Work Supervisor if it is through direct recruitment, post is to be advertised or requisitioned through Employment Exchange. No such procedure was followed. In case of direct recruitment, it was necessary that petitioners ought to have competed with other eligible persons. If it was not by way of direct recruitment, then the petitioners are to be promoted to the post of Work Supervisor. The CWP No.17763 of 2002 [4] promotion must be made after considering the claim of other eligible persons. Petitioners cannot through back door channel be made to gain something to the disadvantage of others. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 9, 2010. JUDGE RC