IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1419 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 25, 2011 Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh ...Appellant Versus Hukam Chand ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 31.10.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent has throughout been given the pay scales, which have been given to the Librarians posted in the colleges of Punjab and the Public Libraries of the Punjab Government and, therefore, there was no reason for the appellant-PGI to treat him differently at the time of granting benefit after revision of the pay scales in pursuance of Punjab Government notification dated 6.4.1989 (P-8). Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has held the writ petitioner-respondent entitled L.P.A. No. 1419 of 2010 (O&M) to Senior Scale of `3000-5000 and Selection Grade of `3700-5700 after completion of 8 years and 16 years of service, as per notification dated 6.4.1989 (P-8). The appellant-PGI has been directed to pass fresh orders by awarding him the aforesaid scales and arrears have been restricted to 38 months preceding the date of filing of the writ petition. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that there is no room for interference and the appeal does not merit admission. It has remained undisputed that after his retirement the writ petitioner- respondent filed CWP No. 18637 of 1998 against the appellant-PGI, Chandigarh to claim the relief that he be granted the revised pay scale of `2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986. It is pertinent to mention that the writ petitioner-respondent has retired on 30.11.1995. A Division Bench recorded the statement of the appellant-PGI conceding the aforesaid claim. The statement made before the Division Bench by the counsel for the appellant-PGI reads as under:- “ Mr. Nehra states that the petitioner shall be treated to have been placed in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from January 1, 1986. He further states that the consequential benefits shall be granted to him within three months.” (emphasis by us) 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the pay scale of the writ petitioner-respondent was revised vide order dated 15.3.1999 (P- 13) and he was placed in the pay scale of `2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as per notification dated 6.4.1989. The appellant-PGI 2 L.P.A. No. 1419 of 2010 (O&M) further modified the order stating that the pay scale of `2200-4000 would be personal to the writ petitioner-respondent. It was at the time of re-fixation of pay that the writ petitioner-respondent claimed the further benefits in terms of notification dated 6.4.1989. A perusal of the said notification would show that every Assistant Librarian who has been in the scale of pay of `2200-4000 would be placed in Senior Scale of `3000-5000 on completion of 8 years of service after regular appointment, as provided in para 4. After completion of 8 years of service in the Senior Scale, such an Assistant Librarian is to be placed in the scale of pay of `3700-5700. Even the requirement of Ph.D degree has been dispensed with. The aforesaid relief, in fact, would emerge from the Division Bench order passed on 19.5.1999, passed in CWP No. 18637 of 1998 (P-12) where a categorical statement was made by the counsel for the appellant-PGI that all consequential benefits would also be granted to the writ petitioner-respondent. However, the aforesaid benefits were not given, which resulted in filing of the writ petition relatable to the instant appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the argument raised by the appellant-PGI that the benefit of Senior Scale and the Selection Grade have been denied to the writ petitioner because he did not fulfil the condition of participating in two refresher courses/summer institute each of approximately four weeks’ duration or he did not engage himself in other appropriate continuing education programme of comparable quality as may have been specified by the University Grant Commission. The other argument that the selection grade has been denied to him as he has 3 L.P.A. No. 1419 of 2010 (O&M) not obtained Ph.D degree or has no published work to his credit, has also been rejected. The basis for rejecting the aforesaid argument is a specific notification dated 11.5.1992 (P-21), issued by the State of Punjab, which would show that the condition of participation in orientation courses by the Librarians as one of the conditions for the grant of Senior Scale/Selection Grade has been relaxed up to 31.3.1991. The learned Single Judge rightly adopted the approach suggested by the writ petitioner-respondent that since 1968 when he had joined the appellant-PGI, he has always been granted all benefits to which Librarians working the colleges/Public Libraries of the Punjab Government were entitled to. In following para, the aforesaid approach is discernible, which reads thus:- “ The question which I have posed to Mr. Mahajan that whether it is mandatory for the Institution which is an autonomous body to adopt Annexure P21 also. Was it incumbent upon the institution, that having adopted Annexure P8, also to adopt Annexure P21. To counter this Mr. Mahajan has stated that since 1968 when the petitioner joined the Institution he has been granted all benefits to which Librarians working in the Colleges/Public Libraries of Punjab Government were entitled to. He has stated that all relaxations which were permissible to Librarians of College/Public Libraries of Punjab were also available to the petitioner. He has drawn my attention to Annexure P19 when earlier revision of pay scale was granted then also relaxation was made by the Punjab Government and equal 4 L.P.A. No. 1419 of 2010 (O&M) relaxation was also construed in favour of the petitioner.” 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and does not merit admission. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) April 25, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 5