IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6402 of 1990 Date of Decision: September 03, 2009 Gurpal Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant petitioners the pay scale equivalent to that of Hindi/ Punjabi Teachers (Language). The petitioners are Art & Craft Teachers/ Physical Training Instructors and Sewing Mistresses etc., and part & parcel of the Classical and Vernacular cadre having joint seniority and cadre with the Hindi/ Punjabi Teachers. It has been claimed that CWP No.6402 of 1990 [2] the petitioners are being discriminated although rules do not permit. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue is covered by judgment dated 7.5.2009 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.16380 of 1989 titled `Balbir Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to distinguish the judgment cited above. The relevant portion of judgment rendered in Balbir Singh’s case (supra), when extracted, reads as under:- “To sum up the ratio of the aforesaid judgements, suffice it to say that the settled legal position that emerges is that once the State accepts the recommendations of the Pay Commission, it has no discretion to implement it differently for one set of employees than the other set of employees. Particularly it cannot apply different parameters or yardsticks to the same set of employees, who are otherwise in the same cadre/cluster that too without the issue being examined by the expert body. The Pay Commission is admittedly an expert body and its recommendations should not and cannot be brushed aside lightly in an arbitrary manner. The plea raised by the respondent-State that they are performing different duties is of no consequence. The petitioners are not invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work rather their contention is that all along they have been treated as members of the one category of service and were placed in the same pay scale and the Third Pay Commission recommended the same pay scales for the petitioners and other categories but were sought to be segregated by the Govt. in gross contravention of the recommendations of the Pay Commission. In view of the totality of the circumstances and the factual and legal position noticed herein above, I am of the considered view that the impugned notification dated 17.2.1989 is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed to the extent it has provided different pay scales for the petitioners, who are Art & Craft, PTI, MTI, Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers. They will be entitled to the same pay scale i.e. Rs.1640-2925 as has been granted to the Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu teachers.” In view of the fact that learned CWP No.6402 of 1990 [3] counsel for the respondents admits that the issue is covered by the judgment in Balbir Singh’s case (supra), this petition is decided in the same terms as judgment dated 7.5.2009 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.16380 of 1989 titled `Balbir Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’, relevant portion of which has been extracted above. (AJAI LAMBA) September 03, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?