CWP No.11884 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.11884 of 2007 Date of Decision: 22.1.2008 Raj Kumar ............. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. ..............Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Sh.Namit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh.Mahabir Singh Sindhu,DAG Haryana for the respondents. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL) Petitioner joined as a Constable in the Police Department, State of Haryana on 11.1.1989. He is matriculate and also possesses the qualification of ITI (Diploma in Draftsman).Vide order dated 8.2.1994 (Annexure P-2) it was decided to appoint two Draftsman in the Department of Police. Necessary qualification for the post was laid down as under:- Draftsman Matriculation with either a Diploma/ Certificate in draftsmanship from an Industrial Training Institute or Certificate in Industrial Drawing from ITI. As the petitioner has necessary qualification he was posted against the post of Draftsman on 6.7.1994. He continued to work as such till he was relieved from duty on 27.12.2006. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner continued to perform the duties of a Draftsman, with some intervals in between, for the period as stated above. He has filed this writ petition with a prayer that he be paid revised pay scale for the post of CWP No.11884 of 2007 2 Draftsman i.e. Rs.4000-6000, for the period, he continued to perform duties of a Draftsman. After hearing counsel for the parties we feel that the claim of the petitioner is justified. It is apparent from the record and not disputed before us that the petitioner was made to discharge duties of a Draftsman on 6.7.1994. At one time it was proposed to designate him as a Draftsman. However, that proposal was rejected by observing thus:- “2. As there is no extra pay for Draftsman Constables, so GRP can still conveniently and legally utilize the services of Constable Raj Kumar No.1007/GRP as Draftsman. There is no need to especially designate him as such. Take action accordingly.” The case of the petitioner for his re-designation as Draftsman was not considered on the ground that the pay scale of a Constable and that of a Draftsman was the same as on 26.7.1999. In the meantime the State of Haryana issued instructions revising the pay scales of those employees, who were holding technical posts. Except in the police department, those pay scales were made applicable with regard to the employees working in other Departments of State of Haryana. The matter came to this Court in CWP No. 15535/1999 and a Division Bench of this Court dealing with the similar controversy observed as under on 12.9.2002:- “We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that the plea raised by the petitioners being meritorious deserves to succeed. In fact from a perusal of the order Annexure P-2, we find absolutely no reason to create any CWP No.11884 of 2007 3 distinction or differentiation between the posts in various other departments vis-a-vis the posts in the police department. We find that the instructions Annexure P-2 are of universal application. No distinction whatsoever on the basis of the service in a particular department could be made by the State Government. The aforesaid general order was applicable as well to the police department as to any other department of the State Government. Almost in an identical circumstances in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.2579 of 1997) decided on August 12,2002, we had taken a similar view. Thus, while allowing the present writ petition and quashing the orders Annexure P-5, we hold that the petitioners are entitled to the pay scales of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from May 1,1990. However, the petitioners would be entitled to get the arrears of their pay only for a period of 38 months preceding the date of the decision of their CWP No. 351 of 1999 i.e. 38 months prior to January 13,1999.” Claim of the petitioners in that writ petition for financial benefit was confined to a period of 38 months prior to their filing of the writ petition. We feel that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment referred to above. As petitioner continued to perform the duties of a Draftsman between the period from July 1994 to December 2006 CWP No.11884 of 2007 4 (with some intervals), we feel that he is entitled to get pay scale provided for the said post. However, keeping in view the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Anand Swarup Singh v. State of Punjab , 1972 SLR 147, we limit the payment of financial benefit to the petitioner for a period of 38 months prior to his relieving from the post of Draftsman i.e. On 27.12.2006. Disposed of accordingly. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 22.1.2008. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge