CWP No.6042 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6042 of 1997 DATE OF DECISION: February 2, 2010 AVINASH BHATIA ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT CWP No.2049 of 2005 SMT. KAMLESH SHARMA AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. C.M. CHOPRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MS. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, DAG, PUNJAB. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) This writ petition shall dispose of CWP Nos.6042 of 1997 and CWP No.2049 of 2005, in which common questions of law and fact arise. The petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions have prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to release their pay scale on completion of 8/18 years of service on the basis of length of service, as has been done in the case of other similarly situated employees wherein service in lower cadre has also been counted for the purpose of 8/18 years of service. CWP No.6042 of 1997 -2- For facilitation, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.6042 of 1997, Avinash Bhatia vs. State of Punjab and another. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Demonstrator (Female) which was a Class III post in the Punjab Agriculture Department in the year 1974. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Training Officer (Female), which is a PAS-II post, on 26.9.1984. On 18.9.1992, the Punjab Government formed one cadre of all posts pertaining to Class III, Class II and Class I post for the purpose of pay fixation w.e.f. 1.1.1991. The case of the petitioner is that although initially she was appointed as Demonstrator (Female), which was a Class III post, in the year 1974, but she was appointed to Class II post on 26.9.1984 and hence, the service rendered by her on Class III post of Demonstrator (Female) in Punjab Agriculture Department be also counted for the purposes of pay fixation on completion of 8/18 years of service. Learned counsel submits that the persons who had remained on Class III post throughout were granted this benefit on completion of the aforementioned tenure whereas, the petitioner who had been promoted to Class II post in the year 1984 has been denied the said benefit. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgement (Annexure P-10) in CWP No.11697 of 1995, Sarvjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 6.5.1996, wherein also the petitioner had been promoted to Class II post after being initially inducted in service on Class III post. This Court while allowing the writ petition held that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of higher pay scale on the basis of his length of service by counting Class III service also. Said higher pay scale was to be CWP No.6042 of 1997 -3- given on the basis of completion of 8/18 years of service. Learned counsel submits that the aforementioned judgement was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has upheld the judgement passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Counsel for the State has submitted that as the petitioner did not complete 18 years of service in the cadre of Training Officer (Female) which is a Class II post, hence she was not entitled to claim higher pay scale. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that present case is squarely covered by the decision in Sarvjit Singh's case (supra) (Annexure P-10). The petitioner was initially appointed as a Demonstrator (Female), which was a Class III post, in the year 1974, but was subsequently appointed as Training Officer (Female), which is a Class II post. The service rendered by the petitioner as Demonstrator (Female) (Class III) post would have to be taken into consideration for the purposes of grant of higher pay scale on completion of 8/18 years of service. It would be wholly unjust if persons who remained on Class III posts were given the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of 8/18 years of service and denied the same to the petitioner who remained on Class III post for a period of 11 years and thereafter was promoted to Class II post. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in CWP No.11292 of 1991, Balbir Singh Rathee vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 31.1.1994. In this case, it was held that grant of higher pay to a junior merely on the basis of length of service is ex-facie arbitrary and violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present case, it would be highly unreasonable that a junior officer gets higher pay than his CWP No.6042 of 1997 -4- senior. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and directions are issued to the respondents to release higher pay scale to the petitioner on completion of 8/18 years of service, after counting the period of service rendered by her as Demonstrator (Female) in the Punjab Agriculture Department. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits, i.e. arrears, etc. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the arrears which accrue to the petitioner. The entire arrears shall be released to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. February 2, 2010 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE