IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 335 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 28, 2009
State of Punjab and another.
... Appellants
Versus
S.P. Mehta and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.
Present : Ms. Rita Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for the appellants.
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)
The appellants have assailed the judgment rendered by this
Court on 23.09.2008 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4818 of 1987 holding, that
Assistant Treasury Officers are entitled to the same scale of pay as Senior
Auditors.
Before we venture to determine the merits of the instant appeal,
it would be necessary to notice, that the second Pay Commission constituted
by the State Government recommended the same pay scale for Assistant
Treasury Officers, as well as Senior Auditors. The Anomaly Committee of
the State Government chose to adopt a different view. As per the
recommendation of the Anomaly Committee, Assistant Treasury Officers
L.P.A. No. 335 of 2009 2
were granted a pay scale inferior to Senior Auditors. The recommendation
made by the Anomaly Committee was adopted by the State Government.
It is the aforesaid action of the State Government which
resulted in filing of the Civil Writ Petition No. 4818 of 1987. During the
course of hearing before the learned Single Judge, as also before us today,
the question posed to the learned State counsel, namely, the basis on which
the Anomaly Committee recommended a lower pay scale for Assistant
Treasury Officers vis-à-vis Senior Auditors, has remained unanswered.
Additionally, it is acknowledged, that the preceding (First Pay Commission)
as well as the subsequent (Third Pay Commission) recommended the same
pay scale for Assistant Treasury Officers, as was recommended for Senior
Auditors. It is also acknowledged, that the recommendations made by the
Third Pay Commission have since been implemented. In the background of
the aforesaid factual position, there remains no dispute, whatsoever, that
there was no basis with the Anomaly Committee to suggest a different pay
scale for Assistant Treasury Officers, which was inferior to the pay scale
adopted for Senior Auditors.
During the course of hearing, the sole contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants was based on a factual assertion recorded in the
judgment dated 23.09.2008, wherein the learned Single Judge noted “…
rather Senior Auditors are always suppose to work under the Assistant
Treasury Officers…”. This finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is
sought to be assailed on the basis of an affidavit now filed before this Court
through civil miscellaneous application No. 1523-LPA of 2009, wherein the
appellants have also enclosed Annexure A/1, a communication dated
L.P.A. No. 335 of 2009 3
28.05.2009, wherein in paragraph 2(ii), it is noticed as under:-
“(ii) That there are separate cadres of Section Officers and
Treasury Officers. The Section Officers are posted in the
various offices / departments of the State Government whereas
Treasury Officers remain posted in the Treasuries. After
carefully going through Service Rules of Senior Auditors /
Section Officers and Assistant Treasury Officer / Officer, it
was found that there was no provision where the Senior
Auditors and Section Officer had worked under Treasury
Officer.”
To our mind, the instant issue raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants makes no difference whatsoever to the determination of the
present controversy specially in view of the factual position narrated in the
second paragraph of the instant order, which is unrefuted.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the
instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
In view of the fact that the main appeal has been dismissed on
merits, we find no justification for passing a separate order on the
application for condoning the delay in filing the instant appeal.
( J.S. Khehar )
Judge
July 28, 2009 ( S.D. Anand )
vkd Judge