Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Singh Verma vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 8 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064023
CWP-21470-2020 2024:PHHC:064023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224
CWP-21470-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Amar Singh Verma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. The prayer made in the present petition is for directing the
respondents to rectify the anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioner viz-a-viz
the Clerks as also pay the arrears of revised pay including conveyance
allowance alongwith special pay w.e.f. 01.12.2011.
2. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is working on
the post of Restorer, which was in the same pay scale i.e. Rs.3120-5160
w.e.f. 01.01.1996, as that of Clerks. As per the recommendations of 5th
Punjab Pay Commission, both these category of posts were placed in the
similar revised pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+Rs.1900/- Grade Pay. However,
again the pay of the Clerks was revised and given a Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-
while that of Restorer not increased. Even thereafter, pay of the Clerks was
revised with pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+Rs.3200/- Grade Pay w.e.f.
01.12.2011 and that of Restorer was not revised. The Service Rules
applicable to the latter govern the service of the petitioner as well. The
grievance of the petitioner in the present lis is that the pay scale of Clerks
have been revised twice over, however, not that of Restorers. He submits
that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment in the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064023
CWP-21470-2020 2024:PHHC:064023
case of Gurbir Singh and others vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court
and another, CWP-488-2015, decided on 16.01.2015 (Annexure P3),
wherein Restorers of this Court were allowed the revision of pay scales,
thereby restoring the status quo ante as on 01.01.2006 and the monetary
benefits including difference of arrears of pay accruing therefrom were
calculated and paid to the petitioners and non-party holders within two
months, whereby the Committee of Hon'ble Judges had accepted their
grievances as genuine, which stood approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in
exercise of powers vested in him under Article 229 of the Constitution. The
terms and conditions of service were held to be governed by the said
decisions, which is binding on the State government. Thereafter, in CWP-
18466-2014, Anuj Kumar Sharma and another vs. State of Punjab,
preferred by the Restorers working in the Civil Secretariat, Punjab, this
Court disposed of the same directing Finance Department or the Pay
Anomaly Committee, to decide the claim in terms of Gurbir Singh (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 pay scale of employees is to be
submitted to finance Department in which the anomaly
has arisen as a consequence of re-revision of pay scale of
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'.
The instant case is a fit case to be placed before the
Finance Department or before the Pay Anomaly
Committee for consideration of removal of the pay
anomaly that has been created. The petitioners herein are
Telephone Attendants who were in the same pay scale as
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
serial No. 19 the only source of recruitment to the post of
Telephones Attendant is by promotion from the post of
Restorers. Therefore, a person being promoted to a higher
post cannot under any circumstances be in a lower pay
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064023
CWP-21470-2020 2024:PHHC:064023
scale.
10. In view of the above situation, where an anomaly has
arisen in the pay scale of the petitioners being higher in
post than the Restorers, while getting a lower pay scale, 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 removal of pay anomaly
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.
11. Let this matter be considered by the Finance
Department/or the Pay Anomaly Committee in its true
perspective within a period of four months on receipt of a
certified copy of this order. Needless to say in case the
claim of the petitioners is being rejected, a speaking order
be passed in this regard, which the petitioners would be at
liberty to challenge. In case claim of the petitioners has
merit, the monetary benefits including difference of
arrears of pay accruing there from be calculated and paid
to the petitioners within 2 months thereafter."
3. Being covered by the judgment in the case of Anuj Kumar
Sharma (supra), this Court disposed of CWP-4456-2016, Kanta Kumari
and others vs. State of Punjab and others, in terms thereof, vide judgment
dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P5).
4. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts, has been unable
to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed in Anuj Kumar Sharma (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
08.05.2024
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
