CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11444 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 11, 2009 Ramesh Chand .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Writ Petition Nos.11444 of 2008 (Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Haryana & others) and 19947 of 2008 (Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & another). The facts are being taken from CWP No.11444 of 2008. The petitioner herein has claimed grant of pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/4000-6000, which, in case of petitioner Ramesh Chand was granted and has now been withdrawn. This is termed as totally illegal. Petitioner Sandeep Kumar, however, has sought the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11444 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: grant of this pay scale through the connected writ petition. Both the petitioners, however, rely upon an order passed by this Court, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-13, which, according to them, squarely cover their prayer and relief claimed in the writ petitions. This, however, is seriously disputed by the State counsel, who would say that issue rather is covered against the petitioners by a Division Bench judgment of this Court, which is annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. The facts, noticed in brief to get the hang of the issues, are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable Computer Operator on 7.4.1994. Reference is made to a communication, Annexure P-1, whereby the Government of Haryana has approved the proposal for recruitment of technical Constables in different technical fields. The petitioner, who is 10+2 qualified has also done one year diploma in Computer Application from Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Karnal. The qualification for appointment to the post of Computer Operator was advertised vide Annexure P-1 and it was 10+2 with one year diploma from any recognized and reputable Computer Training Institute. Graduates were to be given preference. It is on this basis, the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Constable Computer Operator. State Government had revised the pay scales of all technical posts from earlier pay scales to Rs.1200-2040 by issuing notification dated 26.7.1991 annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. On 12.8.2002, one Mukesh Kumar, who was working as Draftsman, filed CWP No.2579 of 1997 claiming pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. Another CWP No.15535 of 1999 came to be filed by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11444 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: some other Constables claiming the same pay scale. The writ petition was accordingly allowed by this Court and order in this regard is at Annexure P-7. The State Government filed a Special Leave Petition against the same which was dismissed on 18.2.2005. This order is placed on record as Annexure P-8. As per the petitioner, these judgments were then implemented. Petitioner also submitted representation for grant of pay scale of Rs.1200-2040, which was further revised to Rs.4000-6000. When the same was not granted to the petitioner, he also filed CWP No.37 of 2006 on 20.4.2006 alongwith 39 other petitioners. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the necessary benefits within a period of four months. The State counsel produced a letter dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure P-10), whereby the petitioners were allowed/granted the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 and further revised to Rs.4000-6000. The petitioner, however, still was not granted this pay scale. He then filed another CWP No.17176 of 2006 alongwith four other petitioners. One of the petitioners therein was Virender Singh, who was granted the said pay scale with effect from the date of his appointment. Said Virender Singh was also paid the arrears. This writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 25.3.2008 with another CWP No.15347 of 2006. This order is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-13. Subsequently, however, this pay scale, which was granted to the petitioner, has been withdrawn on 7.6.2008 without issuing any show cause notice or otherwise affording any opportunity of hearing. That is how the petitioner has filed this writ petition, claiming the pay scale as stated above. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11444 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: In response to a notice, the respondents have filed reply. As a way of preliminary submission, it is pointed out that the petitioner had joined the police Department as a Constable and his appointment clearly shows that he was not appointed to any technical post but was appointed as a Constable. It is accordingly stated that he is not entitled to the pay scale or the revised pay scale of the technical post of Computer Operator, in terms of the instructions dated 26.7.1991 and, thus, the scale granted to him has been withdrawn. In support, reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 9.7.2008 rendered in CWP No.8745 of 2007 titled Lalit Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana, where this Court has dismissed various petitions raising similar question of law. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr.Rathi would point out to the appointment order of the petitioner annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1 to urge that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on temporary basis and not as a Computer Constable. He would then refer to the communication issued by the Financial Commissioner, Annexure R-2, to say that the prescribed education qualification for technical posts in various department, as prescribed, is ITI certificate/diploma from Polytechnic. He would then state that the petitioner does not possess this ITI Certificate, which is an added reason for not allowing him this pay scale. Mr.Namit Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, joins serious issues with Mr.Rathi and contends that the petitioner had applied pursuant to Annexure P-1, which clearly states that post advertised CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11444 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: was for a Computer Operator, for which he was appointed. He would also say that ITI was not the prescribed qualification and only one year diploma from any recognized/reputable Computer Training Institute was the essential qualification. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner would also refer to communication, Annexure P-12, initiated by Superintendent of Police, Yamunangar, where it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner, Ramesh Chand, was appointed to the post of Computer Operator-cum-Constable. He has also placed on record some additional documents alongwith his replication where the fact of petitioner being Computer Operator Constable is mentioned. Annexure P-18 is a communication from Superintendent of Police, Jind, which inter-alia states as under:- “As per record of this office, Constable Ramesh Chand No.916/Jind (now 921/YNR) was called for medical examination against Computer Operator Constable as mentioned in medical check up as register at Sr.No.176.” Annexure P-20 is a copy of T.P.M. where the petitioner is described as Computer Operator, showing that he was taken on temporary duty. In addition, the counsel would refer to order, Annexure P-13, passed by this Court where similar issue was decided by Division Bench of this Court. I have perused order, Annexure P-13, and find that this makes a reference to the same advertisement, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1 and is dated 31.1.1994. The Division Bench has noticed the qualification prescribed for the post of Computer Operator. While disposing of this petition, reference is made to an order passed in CWP No.15535 of 1999, wherein by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11444 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: taking note of the instructions, the case of similarly situated Computer Operators, who had obtained diploma from private Institutions, was disposed of. In this order, reference is also made to a decision in CWP No.37 of 2006, where the same relief had earlier been granted by this Court. In this case, a communication addressed by Director General of Police to the office of Advocate General, Haryana, was placed on record, showing that the higher pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 and corresponding revised pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 was allowed to similarly situated persons. After making reference to all these orders , the Division Bench finally opined that the order withdrawing the higher pay scale was passed without application of mind and ultimately had allowed this writ petition. While allowing the writ petition, it is directed as under:- “In view of the observations mentioned above, the present writ petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside. The respondents are directed to put the petitioners in the same pay scale, which they were getting in the month of May, 2006 after passing of the order in Civil Writ Petition No.37 of 2006 (P11) and arrears of pay be paid to them from the date higher pay scale was withdrawn. The arrears of higher pay scale be paid to the petitioners in the same terms as were paid to the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.15535 of 1999 (Annexure P7). Needful be done within two months from the date of order.” The facts, as noticed above, clearly show that the case of the petitioner and the relief claimed in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision in Annexure P-13. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11444 OF 2008 :{ 7 }: submissions made by counsel for the petitioner that he was appointed as a Computer Operator is borne out from the documents on record. The petitioner has placed on record the material, which clearly show that he indeed was appointed as a Computer Operator Constable. Similarly, there is no weight in the second limb of submission made by counsel for the respondents that such higher pay is eligible only to those who possessed the ITI Diploma. This line of argument was also considered and did not find approval of the Division Bench of this Court, as can be seen from order, Annexure P13. Accordingly, Civil Writ Petition No.11444 of 2008 is allowed. Direction is, thus, issued to the respondents to put the petitioner in the same pay scale as he was granted earlier. The petitioner be also paid the arrears of the pay as due to him. The arrears be paid to the petitioner in the same terms as was allowed in CWP No.15347 of 2006. In view of the decision in Civil Writ Petition No.11444 of 2008, Civil Writ Petition No.19947 of 2008 is also allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the revised pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 from the date it has been granted to the similarly situated persons. He shall also be paid arrears of his pay in the same terms as has been allowed in CWP No.15347 of 2006. August 11,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE