CWP No.11796 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 05.01.2011 Karamjit Singh and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate,for the petitioners. Mrs.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioners are working as Pump Operators etc. in the Department of Public Health, Punjab and posted at various Divisions. They are possessing the qualification of Matric with more than two years Diploma in various Industrial Trades from various Industrial Training Institutes. It was recommended by the First Pay Commission that the posts for which Matriculation with ITI has been prescribed as essential qualification, be granted the pay scale of Rs.140-300/-. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Second Pay Commission, the pay of the persons like the petitioners was revised to Rs.450-800/- vide notification dated 02.12.2002. The State of Punjab, Department of Public Health have granted the Pay Scale of rs.4020-6200/- to the Fitters as per their educational qualification i.e. Matric with two years ITI diploma, but the petitioners who are also working on the skilled post in the same un-revised CWP No.11796 of 2004 2 scale, have not been given the requisite pay scale for not possessing the qualifications. The petitioners served a legal notice on 30.10.2003 reiterating therein that the pay scale of the petitioners be re-fixed after taking into consideration the initial grade (based on educational qualification) of Rs.1200-2100/- with effect from 01.01.1986 and Rs.4020- 6200/- with effect from 01.01.1996 or from the date of their regularisation. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered in the Letters Patent Appeal bearing No.44 of 2009 filed against the judgment aforesaid, a Division Bench of this Court modified the judgment dated 30.05.2008 and made the following observations:- “6. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners supported the impugned judgment. However, after taking instructions from his clients, who were present in Court, learned counsel for the writ petitioners stated that he does not press for the arrears and he has no objection if the pay scale is granted to the petitioners for future. 7. The question for consideration is whether on the basis of material on record writ petitioners have a right to the pay scale in question. Answer has to be in the affirmative for the reasons that follow. 8. It is not disputed that recommendations were made in the year 1967-68 i.e. More than 40 years ago. There is no reason for the State not to have CWP No.11796 of 2004 3 taken any decision in the matter while granting the scale in question to similarly placed persons in categories other than Pump Operators. As per recommendations Annexure P-206 dated 30.05.2003, the Chief Engineer also recommended acceptance of claim of the petitioners. 9. In such circumstances, objection that recommendation of Pay Commission cannot be per se acted upon or that Court cannot go into the question of equation of pay, cannot be upheld. Recommendation of the Commission has been accepted by the State for other categories without holding that Pump Operators were a different Class. Pleas of financial implications is taken care of by statement of learned counsel for the petitioners not to press for arrears. The claim of the writ petitioners for scale corresponding to the scale of Rs.140-300/-, is thus, clearly made out. Since claim for arrears has been given up and is also held to be otherwise unacceptable, the State is liable to be directed to pass appropriate orders effective from today. The impugned judgment will stand modified accordingly. The State may pass appropriate orders for grant of corresponding scale from today, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” CWP No.11796 of 2004 4 The above observations made by the Letters Patent Bench is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to the same relief as granted to the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petition. 05.01.2011 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE