CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16655 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 21,2009 Suraj Bhan and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have approached this Court with somewhat strange prayer. They seek writ of mandamus to command the respondents for not making entry of their designation as Storekeeper in their service book as they had been promoted as Supervisor/Works Supervisor. As per the petitioners, nomenclature for these designations, has not been changed in the Irrigation Department. At the outset, the counsel was questioned if writ petition CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16655 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: for such a claim would be maintainable. Apparently, no legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners seem to have been infringed for which they could have filed this writ petition. It is more so when seen in the light of the stand taken by the respondents that Engineer-in- Chief, Irrigation Department has changed the nomenclature of some of the posts having same nature of duties and identical function with same pay scale, which, really would not effect the petitioners in any manner. The counsel for the petitioners, however, insisted that this change in nomenclature would prejudice their chances of promotion or advancement in their service career without elaborating or specifying as to how they are prejudiced. The service of Petitioner No.1 was regularised w.e.f. 1.1.1986, after having been recruited as Mate on work charge basis on 1.3.1979. Petitioner No.2, who was appointed as Motor Mate on 7.12.1982 was regularised w.e.f. 5.2.1996. On 27.2.2008, the petitioners have been statedly promoted to the post of Supervisor/Work Supervisor. This is a promotional post from amongst Mate, Motor Mate, Time Clerks, Store Munshis, Store Keepers etc. The pay scale of Supervisor having ITI qualification is Rs.4000-6000. Same pay scale is given to the Supervisors, who even do not have ITI Certificate. It is the case of the petitioners that letter dated 20.8.2008 providing that designation of those promoted vide order dated 27.2.2008 be read as Storekeeper instead of Supervisor is aimed at denying the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000. Copy of this order has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. This order, as per the petitioners, is passed without obtaining their consent and hence, could not have been validly made on this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16655 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: ground as well. They have, thus, filed the present writ petition. In the reply, it is brought out that the petitioners were promoted from Group D posts of Mate/Motor Mate (functional pay scale Rs.2550-3200/-) to Class III Post of Supervisor/Store Keeper in pay scale of Rs.3050-4350 and not to Work Supervisors. It is then pointed out that Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, through his letter dated 26.9.2007 has changed the nomenclature of some of the posts having same nature of duties and identical functional pay scale. These posts, as referred to in the letter, are Store Supervisor, Store keeper, Store Munshi and Time Clerk having the same pay scale of Rs.2550-4350. All these posts have now been designated as Storekeeper. It is stated that there is no distinction in the pay scales between the ITI qualified workmen or non ITI workmen . As per the respondents, the petitioners were promoted as Supervisors and not as Work Supervisors. The difference between the posts of Supervisor and that of Work Supervisor is highlighted by stating that they both have different pay scales. To distinguish the case of the petitioners visa-a-vis those who had filed CWP No.16103 of 1997, it is pointed out that the persons in the said writ petition were directly recruited to the post of Work Supervisor and not Supervisors who were promoted from the posts of Time Clerk or Munshi as is the case of the petitioners and as such, the said case has no relevance. As already noticed, I have not been able to appreciate how the petitioners have been put to prejudice by change of nomenclature only. Concededly, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Supervisors, which is having a pay scale of Rs.3050-4350. With change of designation, they continue to draw the same pay CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16655 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: scale. There is no distinction made on the ground of ITI qualification. The petitioners are misconceived in seeking comparison with Work Supervisor, which is in a different pay scale. The whole case, thus, set up by the petitioners is based on misconception. The submission that the designation could not have been changed without effecting necessary changes in the Rules would not make any substantial difference as it is only a nomenclature which has been changed for those posts which were earlier known by a different name, the reason for which has been disclosed. In this regard, it is mentioned that all these posts were being called with such designation having the same pay scale and identical nature of duties and hence, were given new designation. It is not only the Store Supervisors, Store Keepers, Store Munshi etc. who have also been so named as Storekeeper but various other posts carrying similar pay scale have also been clubbed together and given one designation as can be seen from Annexure R-3. Changing of the designation, will not lead to any civil consequences for the petitioners. Thus, there was no need to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as pleaded. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show if the petitioners would suffer any prejudice on account of change of this designation. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction and would, thus, dismiss the same. August 21, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE