High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharamvir And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 November, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharamvir And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 November, 2009
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4275 OF 2009                                    :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                    DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 11, 2009


Dharamvir and others

                                                             .....Petitioners

                           VERSUS


State of Haryana and others

                                                              ....Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



PRESENT:            Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate,
                    for the petitioners.

                    Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
                    for the State.

                                  ****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioners were appointed as Mortar Mate with

respondent PWD (B&R) Department on work charge basis on

different dates. No condition of any educational qualification was

prescribed at the time of their appointment or their regularisation. All

the Mortar Mates so appointed were getting the same pay scale

irrespective of their educational qualifications. They were granted pay
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4275 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:

scale of Rs.750-940 w.e.f 1.1.1986. Some of the persons working as

Mortar Mates in the Department of the respondent filed Civil Writ

Petition Nos.11331 of 1989 and 16062 of 1993. As per the order

passed, they were held entitled to the same pay scale at par with

Work Munshi/Mortar Mates working in the Public Health Department.

Accordingly, Government took a decision on 8.1.2007 to grant the

pay scale to Work Mates at par with Work Munshis working in the

Public Health Department. They were accordingly granted the pay

scales of Rs.940-1400 w.e.f 1.1.1986. On 5.6.2007, Engineer-in-

Chief, respondent No.2, addressed a communication to the

Superintending Engineer to the effect that non-matric work

Munshi/Mortar Mates would not be entitled to the pay scale of

Rs.940-1400 and they will continue to get the same pay scale as

they were earlier getting. This communication is accordingly

challenged through the present writ petition on the ground that it is

illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory.

In the reply, the respondents have conceded that the

Mortar Mates have been allowed pay at par with those Work Munshis

working in the Public Health Department but some of those who were

non-matric would not be entitled to the higher pay scale. All those

who have subsequently acquired the qualification of matric have

been allowed the same pay scale. It is pointed out that those Mortar

Mates who do not possess the qualification of matric are not at par

with the Work Munshis of the Public Health Department. In fact, a

clarification was sought from the Superintending Engineer if the non-

matric Mortar Mates could be allowed this scale. The matter was

then referred to the Government. The Government has not agreed to
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4275 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:

allow the revised pay scale to the non-matric Mortar Mates as there

are two separate scales in PWD Health Department for Matric and

non-matric Work Munshis. Non matric Work Munshis are not entitled

to grant of pay scale of Class III employees. Since the petitioners are

non-matric, they can not be granted the pay scale at par with Work

Munshis in the Public Health Department. They can not be granted

that pay scale, which is for matric Work Munshis. Accordingly, the

proposal of the Department for allowing this scale to the non-matric

Mortar Mates has not been accepted.

The reasoning given by the respondents appears well

founded. As per the reply, two pay scales are available for Work

Munshis in the Public Health Department, out of which one is for

matric and other for non-matric employees. Since the pay scale of

Mortar Mates working in the PWD, B&R Department has been

equated with the Work Munshis working in the Public Health

Department, the petitioners, who are Mortar Mates and non-

matriculates, can not get scale, which is meant for matriculate Work

Munshis working in the Public Health Department even on the basis

of equivalence. It is not that the petitioners have been independently

held entitled to this scale. They have been given this scale which is

available to the Work Munshis in the Public Health Department.

Accordingly, they can get the benefits, which are available in Public

Health Department. Since the non-matric Work Munshis are not

entitled to the scale as sought by the petitioners, non-matric Mortar

Mates can not be allowed the scale which is meant for matriculates.

The decision of the Government in declining this prayer of the

petitioners is, thus, legally valid and can not be otherwise termed to
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4275 OF 2009 :{ 4 }:

be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Reference is made by counsel for the petitioners to

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another Vs.

Ravinder Kumar sharma and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court

367. This judgment is not attracted to the facts of the present case as

it was a case of common seniority list of the diploma holders and

non-diploma holders and was a case of promotion. Both diploma

holders and non-diploma holders were performing the same

functions. The facts in the present case are entirely different. Here

the petitioners are seeking pay scale on the basis of a person

working in a different department and it is not the case that they have

sought this pay scale on the ground that they are performing the

same or similar functions. Similarly, the case of Gurjit Singh and

another Vs. The Registrar, 2002 (1)RSJ 5 was of equal pay for

equal work. Some person working in the Department had acquired a

higher qualification and it was held that they could not be placed in

higher scale while being on the same post. Here the pay scale is

being sought by seeking equivalence with some Department where

this distinction has already been made. The ratio of the law laid down

in this judgment was in different context and, thus, would not apply to

the facts of the present case.

I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition and would

dismiss the same.

November 11, 2009                             ( RANJIT SINGH )
khurmi                                             JUDGE