CWP No.953 of 1986 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.953 of 1986 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.10.2011 Karnail Singh son of Shri Pritam Singh, working in MILKFED Cattle Feed Plant at Bhattian, District Ludhiana. ... Petitioner Versus The Managing Director, the Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (MILKFED), Sector 22, Chandigarh and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate and Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1 The only point that is urged in the writ petition is the claim to entitlement of the petitioner to be placed in the scale of `325-525 after the 1st respondent-MILKFED absorbed the employees of the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that as the petitioner was already in the scale of `300/430, consequently, he was required to be placed at the same scale and that further the post offered on transfer to the establishment of MILKFED was only in the old designation of Mali-cum-Helper but wrongly stated as Farm/Plant Helper-cum-Cleaner in the order, I would CWP No.953 of 1986 (O&M) [2] not find a need to go into areas of contentions. The situation that arises in this case is that 6 other persons, who had been absorbed in MILKFED from the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation on similar designations, were put in the scale of `325-525 with the justification that the Workers' Union had interceded on their behalf and they had all agreed that they would not claim any backwages. The petitioner alone was reported to have not given such an undertaking and, therefore, the same scale had not been given as was given to the other 6 employees. This is surely discriminatory in the manner pleaded by the petitioner and I would, therefore, direct the respondent to place the petitioner in the same scale as was given to the other 6 employees and like the others, the petitioner would also not be entitled to the backwages. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues vehemently that he is also entitled to interest @ 6% per annum since he has been denied the higher scale, which were given to other 6 persons. I would normally find as tenable if the petitioner had stated in the writ petition that he was prepared to forego the backwages in the same manner as the other 6 employees have done. If the petitioner was pressing for a higher scale of pay and was seeking for consideration as a Plant Helper when the respondents were contending that the designation has been wrongly done then, I cannot provide interest in the manner sought for. 3. If the amount as determined is not paid within 4 weeks, it will carry interest 6% per annum from today. 4. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. OCTOBER 12, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE