C.W.P.No.5139 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : January 25, 2010 C.W.P.No.5139 of 1987 Som Nath Pathak and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the respondents-State. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus so as to claim pay and allowances of the post of Inspector for the period, the petitioners discharged duties of such post. Petitioner Nos.1 to 33 are Adda Conductors, whereas petitioner No.34 is an Association of Conductors and Adda Conductors. In para No.2 of the writ petition, it has been pointed out by the petitioners that the Adda Conductors have been deployed to perform the duties as Inspectors i.e. Booking Incharge, Stand duty and , Checking duty for the period ranging from 2 to 11 years. Therefore, such Adda Conductors were entitled to the pay and allowances of Inspectors, having discharged the duties of Inspectors under the Haryana Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1983. In reply, it has been categorically denied that the petitioners are performing the duties and responsibilities of Inspectors. In para No.2 of C.W.P.No.5139 of 1987 2 reply, on merits, it has been stated that the petitioners are provided bus route duty, advance booking duty, booking branch duty, duty section duty and that the petitioners are not performing the duties and responsibilities of Inspectors in any manner. Certain Adda Conductors/conducts were given light duty on their request and that does not make them Inspectors and entitled them to the pay scale of Inspectors in respect of their light duties as Conductors. In replication, the petitioners have attached a Duty Roster of Checking Staff dated 21.7.1983, wherein certain Adda Conductors are reflected to have been given duty as Checking Staff, in support of the argument that the petitioners have been granted the duties of Inspectors, while working as Adda Conductors. The petitioners have claimed to have worked as Inspectors for a period ranging from 2 to 11 years. The respondents have denied such discharge of duties as Inspectors. Annexure P-3 is a Duty Roster, but it does not relate to all or most of the petitioners. In fact, petitioner Nos.2 and 16 are the only two petitioners, whose names appear in the said Duty Roster. Such duty roster is not conclusive to determine in respect of the aforesaid petitioners as well that they have continuously discharged the duties as Inspectors from the year 1983. As mentioned in the written- statement, the assignment of duty of checking or of certain other routine nature are the light duties given to the Conductors. These are not necessary duties assigned to Inspectors. In view of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the petitioners have in fact worked as Inspectors, which entitles them to the pay scale of Inspectors for the period they have worked as Inspectors. It C.W.P.No.5139 of 1987 3 is a disputed question of fact, therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted pay scale of Inspectors, without arriving at the period for which the petitioners have worked as Inspectors, if any. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE January 25, 2010 Vimal