IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.289 & 290 of 2009 in/and L.P.A. No.72 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.2.2009 Punjab State Electricity Board & another. -----Appellants Vs. Didar Singh. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petitions of the original writ petitioners and directing the appellants to step up their pay equal to the pay drawn by their junior Gurmit Singh. 3. Case of the petitioners was that they were appointed on 20.7.1977 and 1.7.1976 respectively as Telephone Attendants. They were promoted on 29.9.1981 as Telephone Mechanics. Gurmit Singh was appointed on 12.4.1982 as Telephone Mechanic and, thus, was junior to the petitioners. Time Bound Benefit of Promotional Scales scheme was introduced, envisaging higher pay scale after completion LPA No.72 of 2009 of 9/16 years of regular service. Vide circular dated 1.6.1994, instructions were issued on the issue of removing anomaly, by stepping up pay of senior employees who were drawing lesser pay than their juniors. Gurmit Singh was given pay scale of Rs.1410- 2480/- on completion of nine years of service on 12.4.1991 and his pay was fixed at Rs.1440/- in the said scale. The petitioners were, however, kept in a lower pay scale on the ground that having gained promotion, higher scale which is given for stagnation was not admissible. The stand of the appellant Board was that anomaly could not be helped. 4. The learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioners being senior and having rendered longer service, there was no valid reason for their having been placed lower in the matter of pay scale to Gurmit Singh in the same cadre merely because at one time they had been given promotion. No promotion had been given after appointment of Gurmit Singh. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that Gurmit Singh was directly recruited while the writ petitioners had been earlier given promotion. On account of the fact that they were given promotion, they were not entitled to the benefit of Time Bound Benefit of Promotional Scales scheme and were not, thus, entitled to higher pay scale. 7. Learned Single Judge has gone into this question and held that in view of earlier judgment of this Court in T.R. Bansal v. Punjab 2 LPA No.72 of 2009 State Electricity Board 2005 (2) SLR 410, source of recruitment could not be a ground for discrimination and denial of higher pay scale. From practical point of view, the writ petitioners had also been denied promotion for more than nine years and there was no reason to deny parity in the matter of pay scale vis-à-vis Gurmit Singh. 8. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The petitioners being senior and having rendered longer service, could not be denied same pay scale which was given to a person recruited to service after the petitioners and who admittedly were junior to the petitioners in the same cadre. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 12, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 3