LPA No. 2150 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF ORDER: 23.11.2011 Pawan Kumar Sharma ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA PRESENT: Mr.Anurag Goyal,Advocate for the appellant Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) CM No.5788 of 2011 CM allowed. Delay in filing the LPA is condoned. CM No.5789 of 2011 CM allowed. Documents taken on record. LPA No.2150 of 2011 This LPA arises out of judgment dated 3.6.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.3473 of 2010 filed by the appellant herein. LPA No. 2150 of 2011 (O&M) 2 The question that came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge was for grant of pay scale meant for technical posts. Directions have been issued for different categories of Technical posts. While upholding the claim of the employees who are holding the technical posts, learned Single Judge has made observations qua the appellant that there is no material on record to indicate that the post of Lab. Assistant in Animal Husbandry Department is a technical post requiring technical qualification. Learned Single Judge has accordingly directed the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant for grant of technical pay, keeping in view the nature of appointment, the qualification and the law. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has undergone two years diploma course in Medical Lab. Technology from the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, as is evident from Annexure P-2. It is accordingly submitted that the appellant holds technical post and thus the claim of the appellant should have been straightaway allowed by the learned Single Judge. He has further referred to the recruitment rules to indicate that the post of Lab. Assistant falls under the category of Technical posts as indicated in Appendix C and D, respectively. All these questions require consideration by the competent authority. Learned Single Judge has not rejected the claim of the appellant, but only asked the respondents to examine all these aspects. Obviously, while considering the claim of the appellant, the respondents will have to examine the statutory rules, the nature of qualifications held by the appellant and his job profile. Mr.Goyal submits that the appellant has apprehension that the respondents may not examine all these aspects. To dispel his apprehension, we permit the appellant to make a detailed representation to the respondents and while LPA No. 2150 of 2011 (O&M) 3 considering the directions of the learned Single Judge, the respondents will also take into consideration the representation, if made by the appellant within four weeks. With these observations, the LPA is disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 23.11.2011 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4