IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.6658 of 2010 Date of Decision:13.09.2011 Sunita Shukla .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pawar, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6, 8 and 9. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) Order passed by the Educational Tribunal in Appeal No.5 of 2009 on 9.3.2010 (Annexure P.13) as well as order dated 3.6.2008 (Annexure P.12) are subject matter of challenge in the present petition. The sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been getting less salary vis-a-vis other employees who are working on the posts of typists and Accountants as no benefit of increment has been given to the petitioner and only because of that reason, she is getting less salary than the employees who are juniors to her. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his prayer only with regard to grant of increment. The issue with regard to termination of services is not under challenge as the petitioner is still in service as has been admitted by learned counsel for the respondent also that no termination order was ever passed and it has also been mentioned in the order passed by C.W.P. No.6658 of 2010 -2- the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show from the record whether the nature of the duties of the petitioner and other employees who are alleged to be juniors to her, are of same and equal nature and they are working on the same posts. Admittedly, the petitioner is working on the post of Pharmacy Clerk-cum- Museum Assistant at the time of appointment. There were no terms and conditions in the appointment letter with regard to increase of the salary which was duly accepted by the petitioner. Simply by stating that other employees who are working as Clerks and Accountants have been granted benefit of increment and the petitioner has not been granted, is not a ground to claim salary at par with those employees who were appointed against different posts. Neither from the appointment letters nor from some other documents, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for the same benefits which have been given to other employees. Parity is always among the equals. Neither the post of the petitioner as well as other employees who are stated to be junior to the petitioner is same nor their nature of duties are same. No ground is made out to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal and there is no merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. September 13, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE