IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3497 of 1989 Date of Decision:- 16.01.2009 Gulshan Kumar ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Secretary, Govt.of India and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mrs.Avtar Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Through this writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 26.4.1988 passed by the Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh vide which the application preferred by the petitioner-Workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of certain benefits was rejected by the Labour Court. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been performing the duties of the Library Gate-keeper, Central State Library, Sector 17, Chandigarh and, therefore, is entitled to the grade as is being granted to the Gate-keeper working at the Punjab Civil Secretariat or Libraries, which are at par with the Civil Secretariat staff. It has further been contended that the petitioner is entitled to special pay which is being paid to the staff of the Secretariat and Libraries in the State of Punjab. The contention is that because the petitioner has been C.W.P.No.3497 of 1989 -2- performing the same work and duties, he is entitled to the pay of the post as such. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner-workman was appointed as Mali with the Education Department in the year 1959, whereafter, he was promoted as Chowkidar. In that promotion order, it was specifically mentioned that he would draw the wages in the same scale to which he was entitled to earlier. He was thereafter promoted as Gate-keeper with effect from 6.5.1994 where again the stipulation as provided earlier continued. However, in that order, it was further stated that he could be reverted to his original post at any time. On the request of the workman, his status was changed from Gate-keeper to that of Peon vide order dated 1.7.1970, Exhibit W-6. Basing his contention on these submissions, counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner is being granted the salary as per the grade admissible to the employees of the Education Department. An extract of the recommendation of the Pay Commission, which has been accepted, has been placed on record by the respondents according to which the pay-scale of Chowkidar, Mali and Gate-keeper was similar. Thereafter, the second Pay Commission Report also shows that the pay scale of the Peon, Chowkidar, Mali, Sweepers, and Guards was also similar. On this basis, counsel submits that since the pay- scale of the post on which the petitioner was working is the same, therefore, he was entitled to the said grade and is to be and is being granted the same. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the Pay Commission recommendation which has been placed on record by the petitioner, which is marked as 'X', the employees working at the Secretariat C.W.P.No.3497 of 1989 -3- are entitled to the higher pay-scale and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner should have been considered treating him to be an employee being entitled to the scale of the Secretariat staff and if that had been done, he would have been entitled to a higher scale which has not been so granted to him. A perusal of the record, besides the admitted facts would show that the petitioner was appointed in the Education Department. He is being granted the pay-scale of the said Department, which he is entitled to, being its employee. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the Chowkidar working in the Education Department would be entitled to the pay-scale of an employee who is deputed at the Secretariat or the pay-scale of an employee of the Central State Library, Sector 17, Chandigarh, is equivalent to that of the Secretariat staff. That being the position, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. A perusal of the order dated 26.7.1988 (Annexure P-1) would show that the contentions as raised by the workman before the learned Labour Court have been dealt with in detail and all aspects have been taken into consideration while coming to a conclusion that the workman was not entitled to the difference of pay-scale as has been claimed by him. It has further been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the workman would be covered by the judgments passed by this Court in the case of J.S.Garg, Director vs. State of Haryana and others, 2003(3) RSJ 560, G.S.Gill vs. State of Punjab and others, 1993 (3) RSJ 669, Pritam Singh Dhaliwal vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (6) SLR 759 as the petitioner would be entitled to the pay scale on the post on which he is working. There can be no dispute with the contention C.W.P.No.3497 of 1989 -4- raised by the counsel for the petitioner but as per the award which is under challenge before this Court, the pay-scale of a Peon and that of a Chowkidar is the same which finding is based on the recommendation of the Pay Commission and, therefore, no benefit can be granted on this score. Furthermore, the above-referred judgments are of no help to the petitioner. Finding no merit in the petition, I dismiss the same. January 16, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE