IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14896 of 1993. [O&M] Date of Decision: 23rd March, 2011. Nachhatar Singh Petitioner through Mr. K.K.Goel, Advocate Versus Vice-Chancellor, Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. HNS Gill, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks a Mandamus for the grant of selection grade in the revised pay scale introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The above stated relief has been sought on the strength of the Government instructions dated 29.10.1984 and 03.03.1980 [Annexures P-4 and P-5]. The petitioner is an employee of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana where he joined as a Restorer in the Department of Plant Breeding in 1966. The facts are not broadly in dispute that with a view to remove stagnation in the service career of its employees, the State of Punjab has been providing selection grade to the extent of 20% of the posts in the cadre and the petitioner as per his seniority was also granted selection grade of `510-810 till 31.12.1985. Suffice it to mention here that the selection grade was granted it being part of the revised pay structure introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1978 by the Second Punjab Pay Commission. However, on the recommendations of the 3rd Punjab Pay Commission which came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the selection grade was abolished while granting the revised pay scales. An option was given to the employees to continue to draw old pay scales and/or switch over to the new revised pay scales w.e.f. the cut-off date. The petitioner opted for the revised pay scale and consequently his pay was accordingly fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1986 at par with those who were also drawing selection grade prior to 1.1.1986 were fixed in the running grade from that date. When the new revised pay structure was introduced on the recommendations of the 3rd Punjab Pay Commission, it can be safely inferred that the existing pay structures of the employees including admissibility of selection grade to the extent of 20% of the posts must have been kept in view. The revised pay structure invariably leads to increase in the total emoluments though it may vary on case to case basis depending upon the total emoluments earlier drawn by an employee. The petitioner was also a beneficiary of the new pay scale[s], though proportionate increase in his case was bound to be less than a junior Restorer who was still in the un- revised time-scale only and was yet to be placed in the selection grade. The fact that selection grade stood abolished uniformly leaves no room to allege discrimination. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the Punjab Government instructions dated 29.10.1984 [Annexure P-4] is inconsequential as these instructions regulate the grant of selection grade under the pre-revised pay scales which were in vogue till 31.12.1985. The petitioner, on the other hand, wants to claim selection grade on or after 1.1.1986. The decision of this Court in Mohan Lal Sharma v State of Punjab and Ors., CWP No. 94 of 1987 decided on 26.11.1987 [Annexure P-7] also does not advance the petitioner's cause as in that case the employee was denied selection grade in the pre-revised pay scale due to in-action of the authorities and later on his case was kept pending to await the report of the 3rd Punjab Pay Commission. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Dasti. March 23, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE