Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmiri Lal vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 21 November, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153303
CWP-3339-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221 CWP-3339-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision :21.11.2024
Kashmiri Lal through LRs .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
In the present petition, prayer of the petitioner is that he is
working on the post of Bill and Cash Messenger in the Department of
Punjab State Lotteries and he is entitled for the pay given to the Bill and
Cash Messenger working in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha.
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply
wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner is being granted pay scale as
notified by the competent authority after recommendation of the Pay
Commission and nothing has come on record that post on which the
petitioner is working carries the same qualification and nature of duties with
respect to Bill and Cash Messenger working in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and
in the absence of any such data provided by the petitioner, the benefit cannot
be extended to him.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153303
CWP-3339-2019 (O&M) -2-
With regard to the fixation of pay scale of a particular post, the
jurisdiction of the Court is very limited. Once, an expert body i.e. Pay
Commission considered all the facts keeping in view the nature of duties, the
qualification and the job profile, the pay scale is given to a particular post by
the Pay Commission, which is accepted by the employer, this Court will not
like to interfere until and unless the grant of a particular pay scale to a
particular cadre is arbitrary or illegal on the face of it.
Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7799-2024, titled as
State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Virendra Bahadur Katheria and
others, decided on 15.07.2024 , pay parity cannot be claimed as
indefeasible enforceable right except where the competent authority has
taken a decision to equate two posts. In the absence of any equation, even if,
the two posts carries same nomenclature, the benefit of pay parity cannot be
claimed. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
"53. It needs no emphasis that prescription of pay scale for a
post entails Policy decision based upon the recommendations of
an expert body like Pay Commission. All that the State is
obligated to ensure is that the pay structure of a promotional or
higher post is not lower than the feeder cadre. Similarly, pay
parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right
save and except where the Competent Authority has taken a
conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their
different nomenclature or distinct qualifications. Incidental grant
of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express
equation amongst such posts, cannot be termed as an anomaly in
a pay scale of a nature which can be said to have infringed the
right to equality under Article 16 of our Constitution."
In the present case, the parity is only being claimed on the basis
of the nomenclature of the two posts, one on which the petitioner is working
and another one which is available with the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and in the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153303
CWP-3339-2019 (O&M) -3-
office of Finance Department.
Nothing has come on record that post on which the petitioner is
working was ever equated with the post in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha or with
Finance Department. In the absence of any equation done by a competent
authority, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for the same pay scale
as being given to the Bill and Cash Messenger working in the Punjab
Vidhan Sabha or with Finance Department is not made out.
Further, as per the settled principle of law, the prescription of a
particular pay scale to a particular post should be left to the expert. i.e the
Pay Commission. Once, the Pay Commission has not granted the pay parity
to the Bill and Cash Messenger working in different department of the State
of Punjab, this Court will not like to interference so as to grant the said
benefit only on the asking of the petitioner.
Not only this, the petitioner is claiming parity qua the 5th Pay
Commission whereas, even in the 6th Pay Commission, the same posts
carries the different pay scale. Once, in the subsequent Pay Commission
report, different pay scale has been given to the posts in question, this Court
will not like to interference in the same in any manner.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstance recorded
hereinbefore, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the
writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed
of.
November 21, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
