CWP No. 1446 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 25.1.2011 Kulwant Kaur and others ...Petitioners VERSUS The State of Punjab and Ors. …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.RK Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage by this order. The moot point involved in the present petition is whether the State after acceptance of the recommendations of the Pay Commission is entitled to temper with it and again classify/re-classify the set of the employees brought under one cluster by the Pay Commission the expert body without having got the matter re-examined either by the Pay Commission or any other expert body. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the issue CWP No. 1446 of 2011 2 involved in these petitions is no more res integra, having been settled by this Court vide its judgment dated 7.5.2009 passed in CWP No.16380 of 1989 wherein following observations/directions have been made:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the factual background in depth. The sanctity of the recommendations of the Pay Commission and its implementation has been considered by a catine of judgements from this Court as also from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A few are as under:- 1. A.R. Lamba, Ex-Assistant Director Vs. Khadi and Village Industries Commission and others 2004(3) RSJ 640. 2. Pritam Das and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2001(3) RSJ, 357. 3. Employees of Tannery & Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. And another Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 1367. 4. Raj pal Verma and others Vs. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and others 2001 (4) RSJ 515. To sum up the ratio of the aforesaid judgements, suffice it to say that the settled legal position that emerges is that once the State accepts the recommendations of the Pay Commission, it has no discretion to implement it differently for one set of employees than the other set of employees. Particularly it cannot apply different parameters or yardsticks to the same set of employees, who are otherwise in the same cadre/cluster that too without the issue being examined by the expert body. The Pay Commission is admittedly an expert body and its recommendations should not and cannot be brushed aside lightly in an arbitrary manner. The plea raised by the respondent-State that they are performing different duties is of no consequence. The petitioners are not invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work rather their contention is that all along they have been treated as members of the one category of service and were placed in the same pay scale and the Third Pay Commission recommended the same pay scles for the petitioners and other categories but were sought to be segregated by the Govt. in gross contravention of the recommendations of the Pay Commission. In view of the totality of the circumstances and the factual and legal position noticed herein above, I am of the considered view that the impugned notification dated 17.2.1989 is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed to the extent it has provided different pay scales CWP No. 1446 of 2011 3 for the petitioners, who are Art & Craft, PTI, MTI, Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers. They will be entitled to the same pay scale i.e. Rs.1640-2925 as has been granted to the Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu teachers.” This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations/directions. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 25.1. 2011 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4