LPA No. 842 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) LPA No. 842 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Jasmer Singh ...Respondent (2) LPA No. 984 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: July 5, 2011 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Roshan Lal ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. CM No. 2286 of 2011 in LPA No. 842 of 2011 CM No. 2774 of 2011 in LPA No. 984 of 2011 Heard. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing the appeals is condoned. LPA No. 842 of 2011 2 Main Cases The above noted first LPA under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the appellants (who were respondents in the writ petition) against the order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 19994 of 2009, vide which the order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure P/6) was quashed and the appellants were directed to re-fix the pay of the respondent (writ petitioner), as indicated in the order, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the the order, restricting the arrears to 38 months prior to 7.2.1994 i.e. the date when he served the representation upon the appellants. The above noted second LPA has been preferred against the order dated 10.5.2010 passed in CWP No. 19791 of 2009, which was allowed in view of the judgment in CWP No. 19994 of 2009 and it was held that Roshan Lal-respondent (writ petitioner) shall be entitled to the scale of `1200-2040 with effect from the date of engagement in the revised pay scale, restricting the arrears to 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition. Jasmer Singh and Roshan Lal (writ petitioners) were appointed to the post of Fitter Coolie w.e.f. June, 1990 and 1.5.1990 respectively and their services were regularized w.e.f. 1.2.1996 on the said post. The Finance Department of the Haryana Government, vide letter dated 26.7.1991 revised the pay-scale of technical posts of those employees who were having qualification of matric with I.T.I. and those employees were granted the pay-scale of `1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990. They have contended in their writ petitions that after getting permission from the Department, they acquired the qualification of I.T.I. in January, 2004 and February 2003 LPA No. 842 of 2011 3 respectively. After having acquired that qualification, they made request to the department for granting them pay-scale of ` 1200-2040, but the department failed to grant that pay-scale. Both of them have worked on technical post on the basis of their qualification of matric with I.T.I. Similarly situated employees have already been granted that benefit, after they filed writ petitions before this Court. Now they are entitled to the grant of revised pay-scale of ` 4000-6000 and their claim for that pay-scale has been wrongly rejected, vide order dated 26.5.2009, which is liable to be quashed being illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned Single Judge, after relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 2032 of 2000 (Attar Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others) decided on 17.9.2002 and single Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 9510 of 1994 (Shamsher Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.12.2008, passed the above said impugned orders. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge has erred while relying upon the above said judgments, which were passed in different set of facts in those cases. The petitioners therein were posted against the technical posts, having prescribed technical qualification. The pay-scales were revised only of the technical posts and not of the posts of Fitter Coolie against which the writ petitioners were working. No such qualification of matriculation or I.T.I. is prescribed for the post of Fitter Coolie and the pay-scale of the non- technical posts, including Fitter Coolie, was revised to ` 950-1400 and the same was duly given to the writ petitioners. They cannot be allowed the LPA No. 842 of 2011 4 pay-scale of technical post. He referred to the affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana submitted in Civil Writ Petition No. 6235 of 2010 (Raj Kumar and others versus State of Haryana) of which Annexure R/1 forms part wherein the technical posts of the different departments of the Government of Haryana are detailed. He also referred to the office order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure P/6). On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners tried to assert that the claim of the writ petitioners is based upon the judgment rendered in Attar Singh's case (supra), wherein it was held that a person possessing qualification of I.T.I. is entitled to claim the modified scale of `1200-2040. It is the admitted case of the parties that the writ petitioners are matriculate having passed I.T.I. Therefore, they are entitled to the modified/revised scale of `1200-1240. We find no reason to differ with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. As per memo dated 19.10.1981 mentioned in Annexure P/6, the qualification for direct recruitment as Fitter Coolie was that he must be literate and physically fit and his job requirement was to assist the Fitters and to do minor repairs on his own. Vide Haryana Government Gazette Notification G.S.R.96/Const./Art. 309/95 dated 24.11.1995, the qualification for the post of Fitter Coolie was compulsory knowledge of Hindi and English, physically fit and field test. It was only in respect of technical posts with minimum prescribed qualification of matric with ITI that modified pay scale of `1200-2040 was granted, vide memo No. 6/23/3PR/(FD)-88 dated 26.7.1991 and in respect of other posts the modified pay-scale was `950-1400 was granted. Thus, as per that memo, the writ petitioners were not entitled to the modified pay- LPA No. 842 of 2011 5 scale `1200-2040. It cannot be said that on the basis of the judgment rendered in Attar Singh's case (supra), the writ petitioners were entitled to the said modified scale `1200-2040 only on the ground that they are matriculate with I.T.I. certificate, when such qualification is not prescribed for the post of Fitter Coolie. In that case, the petitioners were matriculate and possessed I.T.I. Diploma and were initially appointed as helpers in the Haryana Roadways and, according to them, they were working against the technical posts. An argument was raised on behalf of the State of Haryana that the petitioners were initially appointed to the post for which the prescribed qualification was non-matric with I.T.I. Diploma and, therefore, the mere fact that they possessed aforesaid qualification did not entitle them to the modified pay-scale of `1200-2040. The Division Bench of this Court held as under:- “...It is not in dispute that the petitioners did possess the qualification of matriculation with ITI certificates and it was only on the basis of the aforesaid qualifications that they were actually appointed in the workshop run by the Haryana Roadways. The judgment of the Division Bench in Ram Kishan's case (supra) wherein a direction had been issued to the State of Haryana to refix the pay of the petitioners according to their qualification the matriculation with ITI certificates supports the contention raised by the petitioners. Subsequently, a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Labh Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 (1) SCT 311 (P&H): 1995 (1) Recent Services Judgments 345, followed LPA No. 842 of 2011 6 the directions issued in Ram Kishan's case (supra).” Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petitioners can claim the modified pay scale, merely on the basis of this judgment, when no such qualification of matric or non matric with ITI/Diploma Certificate was prescribed for the post of Fitter Coolie. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. In the result, these appeals are accepted and the orders dated 17.3.2010 and 10.5.2010 are set aside. No order is made as to costs. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE July 5, 2011 perm