Civil Writ Petition No.4153 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :- 17.2.2011 Sampuran Singh ....Petitioner Versus Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Tourism and Culture, Affairs, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Nemo for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Manager in the office of Punjab Film & News Corporation Limited (since wound up) (respondent No.2) (for brevity “respondent- Corporation”) on 29.9.1979, by virtue of appointment letter (Annexure P1). Subsequently, he was stated to have been appointed temporarily against the vacant post of Field Officer, by way of office order dated 1.9.1987 (Annexure P2). The petitioner claimed that as the post of Assistant Manager and that of Field Officer are equivalent, therefore, he is entitled to the same salary of Field Officer. His representation-cum-legal notice (Annexure P3) was wrongly dismissed by the respondent-Corporation, by means of impugned order dated 6.3.1991 (Annexure P4). 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Civil Writ Petition No.4153 of 1991 2 India, inter-alia pleading that he is entitled to same salary equivalent to the post of Field Officer. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioner that he was appointed temporarily against the vacant post of Field Officer and the post of Assistant Manager and that of Field Officer are equivalent, but the respondent-Corporation did not pay him the salary as was paid to the Field Officer. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner claimed the salary equivalent to the post of Field Officer on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' in the manner depicted hereinabove. 4. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondent- Corporation by filing its written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The respondent-Corporation claimed that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Manager of Punjab Theatre Nurmahal, which was leased out. In the wake of his request (Annexure R-2/1), he was appointed purely on temporary basis against the vacant post of Field Officer, on the same terms and conditions mentioned, in the office order/appointment letter (Annexure P2) as per the Minimum Wages Act. The representation filed by the petitioner was stated to have been legally rejected. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondent has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and relevant law with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that although the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Manager, but while working on the post of Field Officer, he is entitled to the pay equivalent to the post of Field Officer, is Civil Writ Petition No.4153 of 1991 3 neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Vijay Sharma v. State of Punjab 2002 (1) S.C.T. 931 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was observed in para 48 as under:- “The employer and employees' relationship essentially has to be symbiotic. The mutual rights and obligations must correspond to disciplined discharge of duties. Fairness is the foundation of this mutuality. It is more so, where State itself is the employer. Where the State expects its employees to work and discharge their duties with verve, there the State must transcend and pay fair wages to the employees in adherence to the concept of equal money for equal value of work. Any discrimination, much less hostile discrimination, in payment of wages would not only offend the predicated concept of law afore- noticed, but also undermine attainment of the defined constitutional goal, by the State. Synoptic analysis of the consistent judicial pronouncements afore-referred, has persuaded us to note the conditions precedent to the application of `equal pay for equal work'. These conditions cannot be termed as a straight jacket formula applicable per se universally.” 7. So, on the peculiar facts and in the circumstances of that case, it was observed that the petitioners therein, who were working as Ledger Clerks, Ledger Keepers, Pump Operators, Mali-cum-Chowkidars, Fitters, Petrol Men and Surveyor etc. and are satisfying the afore-stated essential ingredients, are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale (basic pay and dearness allowance alone) admissible to their counter-parts working on regular basis in the same department. 8. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy. 9. As is evident from the record, that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Manager by the respondent-Corporation on 29.9.1979, by virtue of appointment letter (Annexure P1). Consequent upon leasing out of the Punjab Theatre Nurmahal, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure R-2/1) to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation that he may be adjusted on the post of Field Officer lying vacant at Rajpura. Consequently, he was temporarily adjusted against the vacant post of Field Officer, vide office order dated 1.9.1987 (Annexure P2), which reads as under:- Civil Writ Petition No.4153 of 1991 4 “Consequent upon the leasing out of Punjab Theatre, Nurmahal, Sh.Sampuran Singh, Assistant Manage, P.T.Nurmahal is hereby appointed temporarily against a vacant post of Field Officer, Ropar under the same terms and conditions as per minimum wages Act.” 10. What is not disputed here is that the respondent-Corporation has already been wound up and the petitioner was adjusted as Clerk in the office of Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. Once the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Manager and he was temporarily adjusted against a vacant post of Field Officer on his request under the same terms and conditions as per the Minimum Wages Act, in that eventuality, he cannot claim and is not entitled to the salary of Field Officer on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Thus, the contrary argument of the learned counsel for petitioner “stricto sensu” deserves to be and is hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 17.2.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No