CWP NOS.13330/1994 & 16631/2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 15.5.2009 1.CWP NO.13330 OF 1994 Darshan Singh etc. ...Petitioners VERSUS The State of Punjab etc. …Respondents 2.CWP No.16631 of 2005 Suchet Singh and others ...Petitioners VERSUS The State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.DS Patwalia, Advocate Mr.TP Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr.Yatinder Sharma, AAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CWP Nos.13330/1994 & 16631/2005 as similar facts and questions of law are involved in both these petitions. For CWP NOS.13330/1994 & 16631/2005 2 the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.13330 of 1994. The petitioners were working as Surveyors in the Irrigation Department, Punjab. There is another cadre of Surveyors in the Soil Conservation Department of Punjab. Prior to 1978, surveyors in both the aforesaid departments were in the pay scale of Rs.140-300. On the recommendation of the 1st Pay Commission of the Punjab Government, the pay scale of the Surveyors in both the departments were revised from Rs.140-300 to Rs.450-800 w.e.f. 1.1.1978. Again the pay scale of the Surveyors was revised to Rs.1200-2100 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Vide order dated 14.10.1993 (Annexure P-3), the State of Punjab granted pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 to the Surveyors working in the Soil Conservation Department w.e.f. 1.9.1993, subject to the condition that they have completed 12 years of regular service. However, similar benefit was not extended to the petitioners. The State of Punjab also granted the benefit of Local Travelling Allowance w.e.f. 1.10.1992 to the Surveyors in the Soil Conservation Department vide order dated 23.9.1992 (Annexure P-4). The grievance of the petitioners is that the Surveyors working in the Irrigation Department were deprived of the benefit of the revised pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 as also the benefit of Local Travelling Allowance, though such benefits have been extended to the Surveyors in the Soil Conservation Department. The petitioners made a representation dated 25.11.1993 (Annexure P-5). On 28.1.1994, respondent no.3-Chief Engineer Irrigation, Punjab recommended the case of the petitioners vide his letter (Annexure P-6). While making recommendation, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Punjab also conveyed to the Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department that the duties of Surveyors working CWP NOS.13330/1994 & 16631/2005 3 either in the Soil Conservation Department or in the Irrigation Department are similar and the pay scales of both the departments should be similar. He also recommended payment of the Local Travelling Allowance also at par with the Surveyors in the Soil Conservation Department. Instead of considering the claim of the petitioners for the grant of revised pay scale at par with the Surveyors in the Soil Conservation Department, the Government conveyed to the Chief Engineer vide its letter dated 16.5.1994 (Annexure P-8) that in view of the constitution of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission, the matter be placed before the Commission. The petitioners made another representation dated 14.7.1994 (Annexure P-10). Having received no response, the petitioners have approached this Court for grant of the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 and the fixed Local Travelling Allowance. Even though, the State was put to notice, but no reply has been filed. These petitions are pending since 1994. Hence the same have been heard in absence of the reply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In absence of there being any rebuttal, the averments in the writ petitions are to be taken as correct, particularly, when most of the averments are supported by the correspondence on the subject. On the basis of the record of the writ petitions, it emerges that the Surveyors working in the Irrigation Department and the Surveyors working in the Soil Conservation Department were in the same pay scale prior to 1978. The pay scales of both the categories of Surveyors were revised to Rs.450-800 w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and Rs.1200-21000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the basis of the recommendations of the 1st and 2nd Punjab Pay Commissions. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department has also communicated to the Government that the duties of CWP NOS.13330/1994 & 16631/2005 4 both the categories of Surveyors are similar in nature. The Surveyors working in the Soil Conservation Department have also been allowed Local Travelling Allowance w.e.f. 1.10.1992, but similar benefits have been denied to the petitioners. In absence of any reply, it has to be inferred and presumed that the claim of the petitioners is not disputed. Otherwise also, there is enough material on record, particularly, noticed here-in-above to indicate that the Surveyors in the Irrigation Department and Soil Conservation Department are performing similar kind of duties and thus they cannot be discriminated in the matter of pay scales and other allied benefits like Local Travelling allowance. Similar issue has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. And another vs. Union of India and others, 1991(2) SLR 131. While considering the nature of duties and parity of pay scales, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made following observations:- “13.It is thus evident that although in 1970 there was parity in the pay scales of the employees falling in the four categories referred to above who were employed with the respondent-corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, the said parity was disturbed in course of time on account of the fact that in the Cotton Corporation of India there was timely revision in the pay scales in 1973, 1977 and 1982, whereas in the respondent-corporation, the revision in the pay scales was after a much longer gap in 1976 and 1983. The revised pay-scales granted to the employees of the Cotton CWP NOS.13330/1994 & 16631/2005 5 Corporation of India with effect from January 1, 1973 were given to the employees of the respondent- corporation with effect from August 1, 1976. The said pay-scales were fixed as per the Third Central Pay Commission formula which had come into force with effect from January 1, 1973. This would show that while the employees of the Cotton Corporation of India were given the revised pay-scale in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula with effect from January 1, 1973, when the revised pay-scales as recommended by the Third Pay Commission were brought into force, the employees of the respondent-corporation were given the said revised pay-scales from a later date, i.e. August 1, 1976. In the Cotton Corporation of India the employees had a revision of their pay scales with effect from October 1, 1977 and a further revision with effect from September 1, 1982 whereas in the respondent- Corporation there was no revision in the pay-scales after the revision of 1976 till the passing of the order dated April 25, 1986 during the pendency of these writ petitions whereby the pay-scales have been revised with effect from August 1, 1983. The revised pay-scales fixed under order dated April April 25, 1986, are, however, much lower than the pay scales of similar employees in the Cotton Corporation of India which were fixed with effect from September 1, 1982. Thus, we find that though CWP NOS.13330/1994 & 16631/2005 6 there was parity in the pay-scales of the employees falling in the categories mentioned above in the respondent-corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, in 1970, the said parity was disturbed in 1973 when the pay scales of the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India were revised in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula. The parity was sought to be restored in 1976 when the pay-scales of the employees in the respondent-corporation were also revised in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula, though with effect from a later date. It was again disturbed when the pay-scales of the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India were revised in 1977 and 1982 and there was no similar revision in the pay-scales of the employees in the respondent-Corporation.” A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Haryana State Biologists Association vs. The State of Haryana, 1994 (4) RSJ, 444 has held that once the parity is established, the employees are entitled to similar pay scale. Relevant observations of Hon'ble Division Bench are as follows:- “3.After going through the pleadings of the parties and various judgments cited on their behalf, we find that once a parity in the pay scale of the employees in two categories is granted, the same cannot be withdrawn and the parity disturbed. Once the State is shown to have made a conscious decision of providing parity in the pay CWP NOS.13330/1994 & 16631/2005 7 scales of employees failing in two different cadres, they cannot be permitted to deprive one class of category by disturbing the parity. Any order passed or action taken which results in deprivation of the parity in the pay scales would be discriminatory being violative of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution requiring interference....” In view of the factual and legal position, these petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the basic pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 with effect from 14.10.1993 and also the Local Travelling Allowance at par with the Surveyors in the Soil Conservation Department of Punjab w.e.f. 1.10.1992 to the petitioners, till such time they remained in the category of Surveyors or their retirement whatever may be the position. Let the entire benefit be calculated and paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the competent authority. Needless to say that the petitioners shall be entitled to re-fixation of salary and retiral benefits if they have already retired. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 15.5..2009 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:YES