CWP No. 3969 CAT of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3969 CAT of 2010 Date of decision: 8.3.2010 Rajesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.C.S.Pasricha, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 13.4.2009 (P-17) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chanadigarh (for brevity `the Tribunal') declining the request of the petitioners for grant of pay scale of Rs.5800-9200/- on the basis of qualification of Diploma in Engineering acquired by them. It is the admitted case that the petitioners had acquired the diploma in May, 1999, May 1998, May, 1998 and July, 1997. respectively but they were not granted the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200/- as was the case in OA No. 509-CH-02 which was decided on 15.1.2003. The original application decided on 15.1.2003 was filed by the UT Diploma Engineers' Association, Chandigarh. In order to secure CWP No. 3969 CAT of 2010 2 the benefit of the aforesaid judgment, these petitioners also filed OA No. 140-CH of 2006 which has resulted in the instant petition. Before the Tribunal, the primary reliance was placed on the judgment of the Tribunal dated 15.1.2003. The Tribunal has returned a categorical finding that the petitioners were not drawing the pay scale of Rs.1800- 3200/- prior to 1.1.1996 and, therefore, their pay scale could not be revised to Rs.5800-9200/-. With regard to the plea of the petitioners that those who have qualification of ITI enjoy the pay scale of Rs.5800- 9200/-, the Tribunal has given liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate representation before the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the petitioners had firstly agitated their claim before the Tribunal by filing OA No. 509-CH-02 decided on 15.1.2003. However, they filed individual applications which had resulted into the passing of the impugned order 13.4.2009 (P-17). The order of the Tribunal in the earlier order of litigation required the pay scale of Rs.5800-9200/- to be given to those diploma holders who was placed in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200/-. The case of the petitioners being different, therefore, they were not granted the same pay scale by the respondents and their claim before the Tribunal also failed. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court. The petitioners are obviously not entitled to the benefit of the decision dated 15.1.2003 rendered in OA No. 509- CWP No. 3969 CAT of 2010 3 CH-02. Accordingly, we uphold the directions issued by the Tribunal. It is needless to observe that the petitioners would be at liberty to the petitioners to move appropriate representation in terms of impugned order with regard to disparity in the pay scale of diploma holders and ITI qualified incumbents. As a sequel to the above discussions, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE 8.3.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE