C.W.P. No. 13252 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13252 of 2010 Date of Decision 29.07.2010 Dinesh Kumar and others -----Petitioners Versus The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and another ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. These 3 petitioners have preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in its order dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure P5) and have prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant them the pay scales and allowances admissible to the Junior Theatre Masters (JTMs) and Junior Technicians (Anaesthesia) (JTAs), claiming that both categories performed similar functions duties and C.W.P. No. 13252 of 2010 -2- responsibilities with the same qualification. It has remained undisputed that the petitioners were appointed as Operation Theatre Assistants (OTAs) in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and not as JTAs or JTMs. The latter posts are in the higher scale of pay i.e. Rs. 1320-2040. The Tribunal rejected the claim for equation of pay scale for the reason that both the posts have different nomenclature and have not been equivalent. The qualification for both the posts have found to be different. The functions of the posts JTAs/JTMs is supervisory whereas there is no assignment of supervisory work to the OTAs, which is the post held by the petitioners. Therefore, the principle of 'equal scale for equal post' has not been applied in favour of the petitioners. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered view that equation of posts for the purposes of pay scale is the function of executive, which cannot be performed by the Court which lack necessary expertise. It has also been held that similarity in designation or nature or quantum of work are not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scale. The Court has to consider factor like source or mode of recruitment/ appointment, qualification, nature of work, value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality and functionality etc. In that regard reliance may be placed on the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of M.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpayee, (2009) 13 SCC 635. Therefore, the writ C.W.P. No. 13252 of 2010 -3- petition does not merit admission and is liable to be dismissed. As a sequel to the above discussions, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 29, 2010 Atul