LPA No. 1781 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1781 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 16 . 5.2011 Punjab and Haryana High Court . Appellant Versus . Rajan Nanda and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.T.S.Dhindsa , Advocate for the appellant Mr. R.Kartikey, Advocate for respondent no1. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred by Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging judgement dated 26.5.2010 holding that the writ petitioner- respondent No.1 Shri Rajan Nanda is entitled to step up of his pay at par with his junior Shri Ram Chand. The basic reason given by the learned Single Judge is that persons alike respondent no.1 who are senior to the aforesaid Shri Ram Chand have also been granted step up. It has been found that there is no distinguishing feature between the claim made by the writ petitioner- respondent Shri Rajan Nanda and those who have been granted the benefits like respondent nos. 2 to 5 namely S/Shri Jagjit Singh, Nirmal Kant, Bharat Bhushan and Gurcharan Singh Kang, Judgement Writers. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the penultimate para of the judgement which reads thus: “ A perusal of the above would only show that the reason, LPA No. 1781 of 2010 2 which has been taken into consideration for distinguishing the case of the petitioner with that of respondets No. 2 to 5, is that they have been promoted as Judgement Writers prior to the petitioner. Nothing is culled out which would distinguish the claim of the petitioner from that of respondents No. 2 to 5. This distinction, which has been sought to be drawn by respondent no.1 , is neither sustainable nor acceptable to be said the least. As observed above, no distinction despite specific order passed by this Court on 31.3.2010 has been spelt out by respondent no.1 in the affidavit despite availing various opportunities in this regard. Since the claim of the petitioner is identical to that of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 i.e. claim of step up of pay equivalent to that of Shri Ram Chand junior to him, the depriving of the same to the petitioner amounts to clear discrimination on the part of respondent no.1, which is not permissible under the law.” 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is no legal infirmity in the judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge. It is conceded as a fact that persons like respondent nos. 2 to 5 have been granted the benefit of stepping up of their pay by bringing them at par with Shri Ram Chand. Some of the Judgement Writers from respondent nos. 2 to 5 are junior to the writ petitioner- respondent no.1 Shri Rajan Nanda. They have been given the benefit of stepping up of their pay but respondent no. 1 Shri Rajan Nandawho is also senior to Shri Ram Chand has not been granted the benefit of stepping up. Therefore, once the benefit has been extended to a person LPA No. 1781 of 2010 3 senior to Shri Ram Chand then the similarly placed writ petitioner- respondent no.1 Shri Rajan Nanda cannot be denied the same benefit. It has been found as a fact that there is no distinguishing feature between those who have secured the benefit and the one like the writ petitioner- respondent Shri Rajan Nanda cannot be excluded. Such an exclusion of the writ petitioner- respondent No.1 Shri Rajan Nanda would violate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, we find that no ground is made out for admission of the appeal. 3. For the reasons afore mentioned this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 16.5.2011 Judge okg