CWP No.2016 of 1996.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2016 of 1996 Date of decision : 09.07.2010 Balbir Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN **** Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the respondents. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present writ petition has been directed by the petitioners seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the grade of Rs.510-800/- and its revised scale w.e.f. 1.1.1978 in pursuance of the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.16435 of 1992. 2. The brief facts leading to the filling of present writ petition according to the petitioners are that the petitioners joined as Clerks and have been working as such (except petitioner No.3, who is Junior Scale Stenographer) in the various units/Head Office of the respondent no.1 - Punjab State Coop. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (for short as ‘Markfed’). It is stated that pay scales of the employees working in the 1 CWP No.2016 of 1996.doc Markfed were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1978. However, the petitioners instead of granting the revised pay scale of Rs.510-800/- were placed in the earlier pay scale of Rs.400-600/- thereby violating the principle of equal pay for equal work because all the Clerks working in different units under respondent no.1 including the petitioners are doing the same work. 3. This anomaly was noticed by the respondents and the matter was referred to the Anomalies Committee, which recommended the removal of anomalies and further suggested the payment of revised scale of Rs.510-800/- to 50 per cent of the existing Clerks, Steno typists and Assistant Time Keepers while the other 50 per cent of the posts were to continue in the lower scale of Rs.400-600/- merely on the basis of seniority maintained by the respondents. 4. The action of the respondents was challenged by some of the employees by filing Civil Writ Petition No.392 of 1987 which was allowed and the respondents were directed to grant higher pay scale of Rs.510- 800/- to the petitioners in the said writ petition. The said order was challenged by the respondents by filing LPA No.241 of 1992 which was dismissed vide order dated 6.3.1992 (Annexure P-2). It is further stated by the petitioners that by virtue of the order passed in CWP No.392 of 1987 the petitioners are also entitled to the grant of higher pay scale of Rs.510- 800/- w.e.f. 1.1.1978 but the same was granted to them w.e.f. 21.6.1983 and have claimed the said benefit from 1.1.1978 instead of the date from which this benefit has been given. Subsequently, some of the more employees preferred Civil Writ Petition No.16435 of 1992 titled ‘Hardip and others vs. Punjab State Coop. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.’ and Civil Writ Petition No.14736 of 1992 titled ‘Madan Lal Gupta & others vs. Punjab State Coop. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.’ which were allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02.06.1993 (Annexure P-3) and the order of this Court was given effect vide order dated 17.8.1993 2 CWP No.2016 of 1996.doc (Annexure P-4) but the respondents confined the benefit to the petitioners of the said writ petitions only and did not release the benefit of higher pay scale to the other employees other than the petitioners of the said writ petitions. 5. This, action of the respondents was challenged by three more employees by way of Civil Writ Petition No.141 of 1994 titled ‘S.S.Walia & others Versus Punjab State Coop. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.’ and the respondents at the time of notice of motion granted the benefit of higher pay scale but without arrears on account of increased increment from 1.1.1978 to 5.4.1980. Thereafter the said writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 30.5.1994 in view of undertaking made by counsel for respondents that if the benefit of arrears for 78 to 80 is given to any other employee, same shall be replaced to the petitioner. However, the arrears were also granted from 1.1.1978 onwards on an application moved by the petitioners in the said writ petition. 6. According to the petitioners, the respondents have not granted them the benefit of higher pay scale and have discriminated in granting higher pay scale and the arrears without any cause and reason. 7. The respondents contested the writ petition by filing written statement and raising preliminary objection to the effect that the writ petition is hit by delay and latches, since the cause of action had accrued to the petitioners in March,1980 when a policy decision was taken with regard to allowing higher pay scale to 50% of the employees of the concerned category and to keep remaining 50% under the unrevised/lower pay scale. The delay is unexplained. Further that the benefit claimed has already been given to the petitioners in view of the judgments delivered by this Court but they have not disclosed the said fact. On merits, the respondents have admitted the averments being matter of record and in reply to the payment of arrears, a plea has been taken that the arrears for 3 CWP No.2016 of 1996.doc the period from 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1985 were withheld due to financial position. 8. The identical question was examined by this Court in CWP No.14384 of 1992 titled as Rajinder Kumar Sharma and others V. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and another which was decided in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Shiv Ranjan Kumar V. Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh, 1991(3) S.C.T. 274. The observations made in para 4 are relevant in the present context, which read thus:- “In the present case, it is admitted that all the Steno-typist or all the Clerks are performing identical duties. There is no classification made on the basis of educational qualifications which may have a reasonable nexus with the job requirement. The classification is based merely on the seniority. The contention of Mr. Mutreja that the classification in the present case is reasonable cannot be sustained in view of the pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court. All members of the cadre have a right to get the same scale of pay w.e.f. the same date, it is only when the classification is based on some intelligible differentia, which has reasonable nexus with the job requirement that differential treatment in the grant of pay scale can be sustained.” 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is well within the ratio of the judgment of rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Ranjan Kumar’s case (supra). 10. In view of the above situation, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give the revised scale of pay of 4 CWP No.2016 of 1996.doc Rs.1200-2100 as has been done in the case of other similarly situated employees of the Markfed. July 9, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 5