IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4072 of 2011 Ram Rattan & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners, except petitioner Nos.41 and 42, in this case were appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar. Petitioner Nos.41 and 42 were appointed as Sewerman and Keyman. The petitioners have also been regularised on these posts. They have approached this court claiming pay scale of Pump Operator on the ground that they have been made to work as Pump Operators. The petitioners accordingly pray for grant of pay scale payable to Pump Operator, besides pleading that they are entitled to equal pay for equal work. In support, the counsel has referred to Pritam Singh Dhaliwal Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2004(4) RSJ 599. The petitioner in this case was given officiating charge of Deputy Director Panchayats/Additional Deputy Commissioner, which he continuously performed till superannuation. On this basis, he was held entitled to claim higher pay scale on the post. Reference is also made to Managing Committee of D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Mustafabad Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2004(4) RSJ 737 to Civil Writ Petition No.4072 of 2011 : 2 : contend that employer cannot possibly get the work from an employee of a higher post, and yet choose to pay a pay-scale demanding lesser or higher duties and responsibilities. Counsel would also refer to Municipal Committee, Samalkha and others Vs. Shree Bhagwan, 2006(1) RSJ 448 where Octroi Moharrir was asked to work on the post of Octroi Inspector, but was not promoted regularly. This court did not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court where claim of pay scale of post of Octroi Inspector was granted in favour of the employee. Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and another, 2007(2) RSJ 489 was a case where this court was dealing with the award passed by the Labour Court. In this case, the claim of pay scale of SSA on completion of five years had been accepted by the Labour Court, which was upheld. Simply on the basis of averment made by the petitioners that they had been made to work as Pump Operators, they cannot satisfactory show that indeed all of them have been made to work on this post or have worked on the post. Such a prayer may be considered only if it is established that the petitioners have worked on some higher post to claim any such scale. The nature of duties performed can not establish in any satisfactory manner by invoking writ jurisdiction. Writ accordingly is not an appropriate remedy to go into this factual controversy to allow the pay scale. Not a fit case for interference in exercise of writ petition. The petitioners may have their alternative remedy either by filing suit or by making approach before the Labour Court even for equal work in case they have been made to work on any higher posts. Dismissed. July 27, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE