Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060861
WP-7078-2021 and
C 2024:PHHC:060861
CWP-6000-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
247+264
WP-7078-2021 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 02.05.2024
Jatinder Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CWP-6000-2022
Ranjit Kaur @ Ranjeet Kaur and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being
disposed of together by this common judgment.
2. The prayer made in the present petitions is for directing the
respondents to rectify the anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioners
viz-a-viz the Clerks/Restorers working in the establishment of the Civil
Secretariat,Punjab,ChandigarhandPunjabandHaryanaHighCourtasalso
pay the arrears of revised pay including conveyance allowance alongwith
special pay w.e.f. 01.12.2011.
3. Learned counsel would submit that the petitionersareworking
at the post ofRestorers,whichwasinthesamepayscalei.e.Rs.3120-5160
w.e.f. 01.01.1996, with Clerks. As per the recommendations of 5th Punjab
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060861
WP-7078-2021 and
C 2024:PHHC:060861
CWP-6000-2022 -2-
Pay Commission, both these category of posts were again placed in the
similarpaybandofRs.5910-20200+Rs.1900/-GradePayandtheemployees
workingintheofficeoftheAdvocateGeneral,Punjabwereextendedthepay
scales as were for Clerks/Restorers working in the establishment of Civil
Secretariat, Punjab. The Service Rules applicable to the letter govern the
service of the petitioners as well. The grievance of the petitioners in the
present lis is that the pay scale of Clerks have been revised twice over,
however,notthatofRestorers. Hesubmitsthattheclaimofthepetitionersis
squarely covered by the judgment in the case ofGurbirSinghandothers
vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and another, CWP-488-2015,
decidedon16.01.2015,AnnexureP-8,whereinRestorersofthisCourtwere
allowedtherevisionofpayscales,therebyrestoringthestatusquoanteason
01.01.2006 and the monetarybenefitsincludingdifferenceofarrearsofpay
accruingtherefromwerecalculatedandpaidtothepetitionersandnon-party
holders within two months, whereby the Committee of Hon'ble Judgeshad
accepted their grievances as genuine, which stood approvedbyHon'blethe
Chief Justice in exercise of powers vested in him under Article 229 of the
Constitution. The terms and conditions ofservicewereheldtobegoverned
by thesaiddecisions,whichisbindingontheStategovernment.Thereafter,
in CWP-18466-2014, Anuj Kumar Sharma and another vs. State of
Punjab,preferredbytheRestorersworkingintheCivilSecretariat,Punjab,
this Court disposed of the same directing Finance Department or the Pay
Anomaly Committee, to decide the claim in terms of GurbirSingh(supra),
vide judgment dated 26.04.2017, relevant para whereof reads thus:-
" 9. The Finance Department by Instructions dated
23.05.2012 has issued a direction that 'only those
proposals for revision of payscaleofemployeesistobe
submitted to finance Department in which the anomaly
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060861
WP-7078-2021 and
C 2024:PHHC:060861
CWP-6000-2022 -3-
h asarisenasaconsequenceofre-revisionofpayscaleof
a post on the recommendations of the Cabinet
Sub-Committee whereby the pay scale of promotional
post has become lower than the pay scale of the feeder
post'.Theinstantcaseisafitcasetobeplacedbeforethe
Finance Department or before the Pay Anomaly
Committee for consideration of removal of the pay
anomalythathasbeencreated.Thepetitionershereinare
Telephone Attendantswhowereinthesamepayscaleas
Clerks, Constables, Photostat Machine Operators etc. A
post of a Clerk can be filled up by promotion from
Restorers who has the necessary qualification and at
serialNo.19theonlysourceofrecruitmenttothepostof
Telephones Attendant is by promotion from the post of
Restorers.Therefore,apersonbeingpromotedtoahigher
post cannot under any circumstances be in a lower pay
scale.
1 0.Inviewoftheabovesituation,whereananomalyhas
arisen in the pay scale of the petitioners being higher in
postthantheRestorers,whilegettingalowerpayscale,it
is directed that this matter be placed before the Finance
Department in view of their own Instructions dated
23.05.2012 for consideration of removalofpayanomaly
of the petitioners herein while keeping the judgment
rendered in Gurbir Singh's case (supra) in mind where
Restorers pay scale has been brought on par with Clerks.
1 1. Let this matter be considered by the Finance
Department/or the Pay Anomaly Committee in its true
perspectivewithinaperiodoffourmonthsonreceiptofa
certified copy of this order. Needless to say in case the
claimofthepetitionersisbeingrejected,aspeakingorder
bepassedinthisregard,whichthepetitionerswouldbeat
liberty to challenge. In case claim of the petitioners has
merit, the monetary benefits including difference of
arrearsofpayaccruingtherefrombecalculatedandpaid
to the petitioners within 2 months thereafter."
4. Being covered by the judgment in the case of Anuj Kumar
Sharma (supra), this Court disposed of CWP-4456-2016, Kanta Kumari
andothersvs.StateofPunjabandothers,intermsthereof, videjudgment
dated 24.05.2018, Annexure P-9.
5. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts, has beenunable
to controvertthefactualpositionanddrawoutanydistinctiveaspectsinthe
aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060861
WP-7078-2021 and
C 2024:PHHC:060861
CWP-6000-2022 -4-
6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed inAnuj Kumar Sharma(supra).
7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
case.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
0 2.05.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
