COCP No. 312 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 312 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: December 1, 2009 Balwinder Singh and another ..Petitioner Versus Shri N.S.Kalsi and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.J.S.Toor, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. ,,, Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners who were working as Workshop Superintendents in Government Polytechnics in Punjab were given the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 as per the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. It is also relevant to mention that Foreman Instructors who were in the feeder cadre were given the pay scale of Rs. 2100- 3700, by the Third Pay Commission. The 4th Pay Commission in its report recommended the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 for the post of Workshop Superintendent and a pay scale of Rs. 7880-13500 for the post of Foreman Instructor. While the recommendations in the case of Foreman Instructors were accepted, the same were not accepted in the case of Workshop Superintendents which created an anomaly between two posts as Workshop Superintendents were granted the scale of merely Rs. 7220-11660 in terms of Schedule attached to the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998. Thus, the net result of pay revision after the 4th Pay Commission report was that the promotional post of Workshop Superintendent was in the scale of Rs. 7220-11660 whereas the COCP No. 312 of 2008 2 feeder cadre post of Foreman Instructor in terms of the Rules was having the higher scale of Rs.7880-13500. Raising the aforesaid grouse, the petitioners filed CWP No.12356 of 2000 before this court praying the following reliefs:- “i) directing the respondents to grant the petitioners pay scale equal to the Head of the Department; or ii) that at least equal to that of Senior Lecturer in view of the recommendations made for the purpose and further that the post of the petitioners i.e., Workshop Superintendent being a promotional post of Foreman Instructor cannot carry a scale less than the feeder cadre post. However, at the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing for the first relief and only pressing for the relief that the petitioners are entitled to the higher pay scale against that of the post of Foreman Instructor, which is a feeder cadre post.” This court vide its judgment dated 24.9.2007 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to remove the anomaly in the scale of the petitioners who were working as Workshop Superintendents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and pay the arrears to them within two months of the passing of the order removing the anomaly. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “From a perusal of the above pleadings and various communications, it is evident that even the respondents had admitted that there is anomaly in the fixation of pay scales by the 4th Pay Commission. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments in Tamesh Kumar Dangi and others Vs. State of Haryana 2000 (3) Recent Services Judgments 269, Ranbir Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 1997(2) Recent Services Judgment 440, Har Kishan and another Vs. State of Punjab and another 1987 (5) Services Law COCP No. 312 of 2008 3 Reporter 538 and Sunder Lal Jain Vs. State of Haryana 1995(2) Recent Services Judgments 94. At th time of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents also did not dispute the factual possession stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, which is noticed above. On a perusal of the rules, it is clearly evident that a Foreman Instructor with 10 years experience is eligible for promotion as Workshop Superintendent. Further, it is evident that 3rd Pay Commission had granted the scale of Rs. 2100-3700 to the Foreman Instructors whereas the Workshop Superintendents were granted the scale of Rs. 2200-4000. However, at the time of revision of pay scale by 4th Pay Commission, Workshop Superintendents were granted the pay scale of Rs.7220-11660 as against scale of Rs. 7880-13600 (with a start of Rs. 8000) granted to the Foreman Instructors Still further once the respondents are themselves admitting and recommending the case for removal of anomaly, it is strange to notice that till date no final decision has been taken by them on the issue whereas facts of the case showing the anomaly are plain and simple. It would be in fitness of things that anomaly is removed at the earliest to remove heart burning amongst the employees. As is settled that the promotional post should have scale higher than the feeder cadre post, action of the respondents can neither be justified nor even the delay in removal of anomaly. Accordingly, it is directed that respondents shall remove the anomaly in the scale of petitioners, who are working as Workshop Superintendents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pay the arrears to them within two months of the passing of the order removing the anomaly. The grievance of the petitioners before this court in the present COCP No. 312 of 2008 4 contempt petition is that despite the aforesaid directions issued by this court, the respondents have failed to remove the anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioners and to pay the arrears. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the following paragraphs of the judgment wherein according to him the pay scale payable to them was identified as Rs. 10025-15100. “ In terms of the recommendations of the 3rd Punjab Pay Commission, the Workshop Superintendents were given the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 and Foreman Instructors were given the pay scale of Rs. 2100-3700. The 4th Pay Commission in its report recommended the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 for the post of Workshop Superintendent equating the same with the Senior Lecturers and for the post of Foreman Instructors pay scale of Rs. 7880-13500 (with a start of Rs. 8000 ). While the recommendations in the case of Foreman Instructors were accepted, however, same was not accepted in case of the Workshop Superintendents, which created the glaring anomaly. Workshop Superintendents were granted the scale of merely Rs. 7220-11660 in terms of the schedule attached to the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998, which provided for giving of scales on the basis of equation without mentioning any post. The scale of Rs. 7220-11660 was the revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The net result of pay revision after the4th Pay Commission report was that the promotional post of Workshop Superintendent was in the scale of Rs. 7220-11660 whereas the feeder cadre post of Foreman Instructor in terms of the Rules was having the higher scale of Rs. 7880-13500. This is the basic grouse raised by the petitioners.” It is the further case of the petitioner that despite the fact that the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 was recommended by the respondent- COCP No. 312 of 2008 5 Department, yet in the affidavit filed on their behalf , it is submitted that the anomaly has been removed by granting them a pay scale of Rs. 9200-13900 and, therefore, the compliance of the order passed by this court has not been made and they are guilty of committing the contempt of the court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that as per the judgment of this court, a direction was given to the respondents to remove the anomaly in the pay scale between the post of Workshop Superintendent and the Foreman Instructors and the same has been removed by granting higher pay scale to the petitiones who were working as Workshop Superintendents and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the anomaly was created after the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission in the pay scale of the petitioners and they were being paid less than the pay scale which was being given to the Foreman Instructors, i.e., feeder cadre. It is also not in dispute that after the passing of the judgment dated 24.9.2007, the petitioners have been granted the pay scale of Rs. 9200-13900 vide order dated 17.7.2008 attached as Annexure R-1 with the short affidavit dated 21.7.2008 of Shri G. Ramesh Kumar, IAS, Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, Chandigarh. While allowing the writ petition, the direction was given to the respondents to remove the anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioners and admittedly, the aforesaid pay scale granted to the petitioners is higher than the pay scale granted to the Foreman Instructors on the basis of the aforesaid order Annexure R-1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the 4th Pay Commission had recommended a pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 to the petitioners and therefore, they were entitled to the said pay scale is erroneous. Even the aforesaid contention was not accepted by the court while allowing CWP No. 12356 of 2000 and instead a direction was given to remove COCP No. 312 of 2008 6 the pay anomaly of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that vide Annexure R-1, a higher pay scale has been granted to the petitioners than the Foreman Instructors and therefore the anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioners stood removed. The question whether the petitioners are entitled to a pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 cannot be gone into the present contempt petition. Thus, I find no merit in the present contempt petition. The judgment dated 24.9.2007 passed in CWP No.12356 of 2000 stands complied with. Dismissed. December 1, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE