R.S.A. No.3755 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... R.S.A. No.3755 of 1987 Date of Decision: September 19, 2011 Beant Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Bhakhra Beas Management Board through Chairman and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Ms.Sawita Tanwar, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Appellant Beant Singh was appointed as mason on 17.01.1954. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.03.1964. He was drawing salary in the scale of 88-3-118 earlier to the revision of the pay scale. The pay scales of mason were revised w.e.f. 01.02.1968 to the scale of 110-160 but the appellant was not given the benefit of revised pay scale. He approached the Labour Court and vide award dated 09.07.1977, the respondents were directed to fix the pay of the appellant under revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.02.1968. It is case of the appellant that pay commission revised the pay scale and the report of the pay commission was adopted by the R.S.A. No.3755 of 1987 2 Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'PSEB') and also by the Bhakhra Beas Mangement Board (in short 'BBMB') for the employees working under it. As per revised pay scale, he was entitled to get the salary in the scale of ` 400-600 w.e.f. 01.01.1978. As his claim was declined by the respondents, he preferred a suit for mandatory injunction in the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar. However, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the scale of the Punjab Government was adopted by B.B.M.B. and the revised pay scale of mason was ` 325-495 and not ` 400-600 which has been claimed by the appellant. However, it was held that the scale of ` 400-600 was applicable to the work charge employees and as the present appellant was not work charge employee, he was entitled to the pay scale in the grade of ` 325-495 only. The appellant preferred an appeal against this order. However, the same also resulted into dismissal and this is how the present appeal is before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record of the case. There is no dispute on the point that services of the appellant were regularized w.e.f. 01.03.1964 and he has been put in the pay scale, which is applicable to the regular mason working with the respondents. Once again, it is not in dispute that the work charge employees appointed as mason are put in the scale of ` 400-600. In the trial Court, D.W.1 R.P.Ahuja, Head Clerk, Nangal Dam Division came present with the record, who has admitted that grade of the work charge mason is ` 400-600. The duties of the work charge mason are also the same in their department. The working hours of the mason and the work charge is the same. There is no extra qualification for the R.S.A. No.3755 of 1987 3 work charge mason. They are not made regular on account of government policy. So in own admission by the respondents, work charge employee performing the same duties is getting pay scale of ` 400-600 and a regular employee working on the same post is getting ` 325-495. I do not find any justification in putting the appellant and other employees who have been made regular in the grade of ` 325-495 as revised by the respondents. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are set aside by allowing this appeal. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with all consequential benefits. September 19 , 2011 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE