In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh L.P.A. No. 5 of 2005 Date of Decision: January 22, 2009 Subhash Chander Mittal …Petitioner Versus Haryana State Minor Irrigation (Tubewells) Corporation Ltd. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of L.P.A. No. 5 of 2005 in C.W.P. No. 9527 of 1987 and L.P.A. No. 6 of 2005 in C.W.P. No. 3225 of 1988, filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against a common judgment dated 13.10.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing both the petitions C.W.P. No. 9527 of 1987 (Subhash Chander Mittal v. Haryana State Minor Irrigation (Tubewells) Corporation Limited) and C.W.P. No. 3225 of 1988 (Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Haryana State Minor Irrigation (Tubewells) Corporation Limited) filed by the appellants. In both the appeals common question of law and facts are involved. L.P.A. No. 5 of 2005 2. The facts as culled out from L.P.A. No. 5 of 2005 are that the petitioner-appellant has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions to the respondent Corporation to release selection grade of Rs. 2000-2300 to 20% of total number of posts in Executive Engineer cadre. A further direction was sought to hold that the petitioner-appellant is entitled to selection grade of Rs. 2000-2300 w.e.f. 12.8.1984 i.e. from the date he completed 13 years of service as Sub Divisional Officer/Executive Engineer. 3. After adjudicating the controversy, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the employees of the respondent Corporation were entitled to the pay scales granted to the State Government employees only till such time the service bye-laws of the employees of the respondent-Corporation were finalised with the approval of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation. In its meeting held on 25.8.1980, the Board of Directors decided to revise the grades of the employees of the respondent Corporation on the pattern of the revision effected by the Haryana Government w.e.f. 1.4.1979 as is evident from communication dated 14.10.1980 (P-3). However, on 19.6.1981 the Board of Directors decided to grant the benefit of revised pay scales and selection grade only to the deputationists and not to the employees of the respondent Corporation including the petitioner-appellant. Thus, the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the petitioner-appellant could not claim the benefit of revised pay scales/selection grade in terms of the revised pay rules of the year 1980 framed by the State Government and they were to be governed by the decision of the Board of Directors taken on 19.6.1981. 2 L.P.A. No. 5 of 2005 4. The learned Single Judge also rejected the claim for parity made by the petitioner-appellant with Shri S.P. Singh, who was the senior most executive engineer of the respondent-Corporation and was working as Project Engineer, Incharge of Sirsa Lining Circle, at Sirsa. It was claimed that Shri S.P. Singh was granted selection grade of Rs. 2000-2300 in terms of the revised pay scales granted by the State Government. The respondent-Corporation had taken the stand that selection grade to Shri S.P. Singh has been granted in recognition of the higher responsibilities discharged by him and not in consonance with the revised pay scales. The contention regarding discrimination vis-à-vis employees of the respondent Corporation and deputationists has also been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the employees of the respondent Corporation form a distinct and separate class, different from the deputationists who were government employees. The service conditions of both the classes are different. In this manner, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. 5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Corporation to defend the appeals. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book we are of the considered view that the matter is no longer res integra. The controversy raised herein stand settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation v. G.S. Uppal, (2008) 7 SCC 375. In paras 22 and 23 of the judgment, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- 3 L.P.A. No. 5 of 2005 “It is an admitted position that the posts are mutually inter-changeable. In this situation, it is reasonable to infer that a deputationist performs the same duties as those performed by other persons working in the cadre. It is also an admitted position that the qualifications laid down for recruitment in the Corporation are identical to those prescribed in the Departments of the Government. It is further clear that the respondents have continued to work in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. As against this, their counter-parts in the Government and also the persons, who are posted in the Corporation by way of deputation, would get the scale of Rs. 3000-4500 on completion of five years of service and are placed in the scale of Rs. 4100-5300 (to the extent of 20% of the posts) on completion of 20 years of service. The respondents were obviously placed at a disadvantageous position. The decision of the Government in rejecting the proposal of the Board of Directors suffers from the vice of invidious discrimination. 23. ……When the pay revision took place, the revised pay scales that were given to the Engineers of the State Government were also given to the engineers of the Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining the parity. What was not extended to the Corporation employees, which is the subject matter of the grievance, is the further revision by way of 'removal 4 L.P.A. No. 5 of 2005 of anomaly in pay scales' given to AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the State Government with effect from 1.5.1989 vide circular dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real question would be whether what is given by way of anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of State Government, should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of engineers of the Corporation. When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a class of Government servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment to the pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the pay revision extended to the government servants has already been extended to the employees of the Corporation also, it follows that any correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the government servants should also be made in the case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the pay scale which is the subject matter of the correction. .. ….” Since the matter has been concluded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, therefore, the issue would not survive and no detailed discussion is necessary. In view of above, we reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge and allow these appeals in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of G.S. Uppal (supra). 5 L.P.A. No. 5 of 2005 (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) January 21, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 6