LPA No. 380 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 380 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.03.2010 State of Punjab and others ....Appellants. Versus Darshan Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging order dated 15.5.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby directing the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 with effect from 14.10.1993 and also Local Traveling Allowance at par with the surveyors working in the Soil Conservation Department of Punjab with effect from 1.10.1992 to the petitioners till such time they remained in the category of surveyors or their retirement. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners were working as surveyors in the Irrigation Department, Punjab. There is another LPA No. 380 of 2010 2 cadre of surveyors in the Soil Conservation Department of Punjab; surveyors in both the aforesaid departments were in the pay scale of Rs.140- 300 and thereafter, on the recommendations of the 1st Pay Commission of the Punjab Government, the pay scale of the surveyors in both the departments was revised from Rs.140-300 to Rs.450-800 w.e.f. 1.1.1978; however, pay scale of the surveyors in the Soil Conservation Department, Punjab was revised to Rs.1200-2100 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide order dated 14.10.1993, however, the same revised pay scale was not extended to the petitioners, who were also surveyors but in the Irrigation Department. Writ petitions were filed seeking parity with the surveyors working in the Soil Conservation Department, Punjab. 3. Learned Single Judge having observed that initially pay scale of the surveyors of both the departments was the same and even the 1st Pay Commission of Punjab Government recommended the same pay scale to the surveyors of both the Department and the Punjab Government granted same pay scale to the surveyors of both the departments as per the recommendations of the 1st Pay commission. Learned Single Judge further observed that surveyors in the Irrigation Department as well as in the Soil Conservation Department, Punjab are performing similar kind of duties and thus, they cannot be discriminated in the matter of pay scale and other allied benefits like Local Traveling Allowance. Learned Single Judge placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others, 1991(2) SLR 131 and also on the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in Haryana State Biologists Association Vs. State of Haryana, 1994(4) TSJ 44. LPA No. 380 of 2010 3 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, writ petitions were filed in the year 1994, immediately after the decision of the Punjab Government not to give revised pay scale to the petitioners while giving revised pay scale to the surveyors of the Soil Conservation Department, Punjab. Writ petitions remained pending from February, 1994 to 2009 for almost 15 years, however, the State Government did not file any reply to the writ petitions for the reasons best known to the State. 6. Argument of learned counsel for the appellants that writ petition was decided without reply of the appellants, does not hold any water. The writ petition was filed in the year 1994 and remained pending for almost 15 years and despite of the service of notice and the pendency of the writ petition, no reply was filed. Otherwise also, we find that the surveyors of the Irrigation Department and the Soil Conservation Department, Punjab, perform identical duties and initially they were getting same pay scale and thereafter, there is no rationality or reason to discriminate and not to give revised pay scale to the petitioners. In our view, learned Single Judge has committed no illegality while allowing the writ petition. 7. Appeal is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 18.03.2010 sk.