Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Lal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029767
-1-
CWP-21946
21946-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
240 CWP-21946-2020 (O & M)
Date of decision: 03.03.2025
Tarsem Lal and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State off Punjab and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner
petitioners.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the
respondents to rectify the anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioner vi
viz-a-
viz the Clerk and grant the arrears of revised pay + conveyance allowance
alongwith interest w.e.f. 01.12.2011.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are/were
working on the post of Restorers
Restorers and were granted the same scale as that
of Clerks, however, scale of the latter
er category has been revised, but not
of the petitioners. In this regard, reliance is place
placed on issues in the case of
Kanta Kumari and others Vs. State of Punjab and Others
Others, CWP-
4456-2016,
2016, decided on 24.05.2018 (Annexure P
P-9) based on which the
case of Anuj Kumar Sharma and another vs. State of Punjab
Punjab, CWP-
18466-2014
2014 preferred by the Restorers w
working in the Punjab was
allowed, relying whereon CWP-7078-2021
CWP 2021 and CWP
CWP-6000-2022 were
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029767
CWP-21946
21946-2020
decided on 02.05.2024 and likewise was CWP
CWP-11167-2024 on 14.05.2024
titled as Pardeep Thakur Vs. State of Punjab and ors
ors., which have all
since been implemented vide order
ord datedd 20.09.2024, relevant paras of
Anuj Kumar Sharma (supra) read thus:
"8. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the
respondents is not in a position to dispute that till
15.12.2011 the pay scale of Constables, Clerks,
Photostat Machine Operators and Telephone
Attendants was the same, that is in the scale of
Rs.5910-20200.
20200. In Gurbir Singh's case (supra), the
Restorers of this Court filed a writ petition seeking
restoration of equation in pay scale between Restorers
and Clerks, which writ petition came to be allowed by
issuing a direction to restore the status quo ante as on
01.01.2006 where the Restorers and Clerks were in the
same pay band and grade pay. These orders came to be
passed by the Single Bench of this Court by taking
note that the Hon'ble le Committee of this court had
recommended the removal of the anomaly which stood
approved by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in exercise
of powers vested in him under Article 229 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, by virtue of judgment
rendered in Gurbirs
birs Singh's case Restorers have been
held to be entitled to a pay band of Rs.10300-34800
with grade pay of Rs.3200/-. The Telephone
Attendants being a promotional post would also in all
probability be entitled to similar scale if not an
enhanced one.
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 re-revision of
payy 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029767
CWP-21946
21946-2020
in the same pay scale as Clerks, Constables, Photostat
Machine Operators etc. A post of a Clerk can be fi 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 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 Restor
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 th 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. Learned State counsel despite best efforts has been unable to
controvert regards the factual position and draw out any distincti
distinctive
aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
4. The present petition is disposed of in terms of Anuj Kumar
Sharma (supra).
03.03.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
