Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagan Nath Singla And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 December, 2013
C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1)
C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995.
Decided on:-December 21, 2013.
Jagan Nath Singla and others .........Petitioners.
Versus
State of Punjab and another .........Respondents.
(2)
C.W.P. No.10114 of 1997.
Bachan Singh Cheema. .........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab and others .........Respondents.
(3)
C.W.P. No.21352 of 2012.
Kashmira Singh and others .........Petitioners.
Versus
State of Punjab and another .........Respondents.
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.
*****
Argued by:- Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
(in CWP Nos.14171 of 1995 & 10114 of 1997).
Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
(in CWP No.21352 of 2012).
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondents.
Yag Dutt
2013.12.28 14:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -2-
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
These petitions have been preferred by Agriculture Masters working in Education Department of the State of Punjab. Seeking pay parity with Agriculture Inspectors (re-designated as Agriculture Development Officers) working in various other departments of the Punjab Government, they have sought pay scales of Rs.2,200-4,000 w.e.f. 1.1.1991. Release of arrears with 18% interest w.e.f. 1.1.1991 till the date of payment has also been sought. Quashing of order dated 12.7.1995 (Annexure P-8) vide which such benefits have been denied to them, has also been sought by issuance of a writ of certiorari against the respondents.
2. Since the matter in issue in all these petitions is the same, these petitions have been taken up together for adjudication. However, for clarity and convenience, facts have been taken from CWP No.14171 of 1995.
3. All the petitioners are B.Sc. (Agriculture). In yester-years, persons with qualifications of B.Sc. (Agriculture) used to seek employment either as Agriculture Inspectors in the Agriculture Department or as Agriculture Master in the Education Department. These two departments were much haunted by graduates in Agriculture Science. At that time, pay scale of both these departments were identical i.e. Rs.130-300. Later on, in the year 1968, Agriculture Inspectors were put in the pay scale of Rs.220- 500 (with initial scale of Rs.250-500). Agriculture Inspectors were also given pay scale of Rs.250-450.
4. As per recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, Agriculture Masters were given pay scale of Rs.620-1200 (Starting with Rs.660/-) whereas pay scale of Agriculture Inspectors was recommended as Rs.700-1200. It was w.e.f. 1.1.1978. In the year 1986, Agriculture Inspectors as also Agriculture Masters were placed in the same pay scale of Rs.1640- 2925.
Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -3-5. Claiming that Agriculture Inspectors were imparting training in the field of agriculture irrespective of the department/office in which they were working, whereas the petitioners were working as Agriculture Masters they were also teaching students by holding regular classes and in addition were also imparting practical training to the students in the farms attached to the schools. It is claimed that whether Agriculture Inspectors were working as Soil Conservator Inspectors in the Department of Soil Conservation or were working as Agriculture Development Officers (Fodder) in the Department of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, Animal Husbandry Department or were working as Agriculture Inspectors in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, their job everywhere was the same i.e. to enlighten farmers with regard to latest techniques of farming, soil reclamation, growing of fodder and other matters connected therewith. Everyone of them was working from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
6. With these averments, explaining their case further, the petitioners have averred that notwithstanding recommendations of Third Pay Commission for the same pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 for Agriculture Inspectors and Agriculture Masters, the Government on its own had revised the pay scale of Agriculture Inspectors to Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 when they were re-designated as Agriculture Development Officers.
7. Agriculture Development Officers belonging to Agriculture Department had made representation for grant of the initial pay scale of Rs.2,200-4,000 or Rs.3,000-4,500 after 8 years of service and Rs.3,700- 5,300 after 18 years of service. They had claimed higher pay scales, interalia, on the ground that these were the pay scales which were being given to the persons holding the qualifications of B.V.Sc. i.e. Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences. Accepting their representation w.e.f. 1.1.1991, the Council of Ministers also decided that request of other identical employees working in other departments also required to be considered with the Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -4- concurrence of Finance Department (Annexure P-2).
8. Claiming that Agriculture Masters have higher responsibilities than incumbents of other category of posts having qualification of B.Sc. (Agriculture) as they in addition to teaching have also to look after the farms. Pay parity has been sought with other posts having B.Sc. (Agriculture) as the basic qualification. Decision of Council of Ministers of 18.9.1992 has been cited in support. This parity though was denied to Agriculture Masters, but was granted in case of Agriculture Inspectors (re- designated as Soil Conservation Officers and Agriculture Instructors of Rural Development and Panchayats).
9. Even earlier, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of CWP No.15227 of 1994, by disposing of the same, this Court on 26.10.1994 (Annexure P-7) directed the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioners. The said representation was decided by respondent No.1 on 11/12.7.1995 (Annexure P-8) whereby claim of the petitioners was rejected.
10. Asserting validity with other posts on different departments where basic qualification is B.Sc. (Agriculture) as is in the case of the petitioners, parity in scales of pay has been sought citing decision of 19.8.1992 of the Council of Ministers and claiming that role and responsibilities of the petitioners are even more arduous than incumbents of pari-materia posts in other departments.
11. This claim of the petitioners has been contested. Claim of the respondents is that Agriculture Masters and Agriculture Inspectors belong to different cadres serving different departments, and as such they are governed by different service rules. Pleading that case of the petitioners is totally different, it has been canvassed that Agriculture Inspectors have different qualifications than those which have been prescribed for Agriculture Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -5- Masters. It has further been elaborated that Government accepted the genuine recommendations of the Kothari Commission as also of the subsequent Punjab Pay Commissions of 1968, 1978 and 1986 with regard to recommendations of Anomaly Committees which had been constituted to redress genuine grievances of the employees. Setting out pleadings that there is no parity with regard to their job profile etc., parity in pay scales is denied to the petitioners.
12. In replication submitted qua the written statement furnished by the respondents, assertions earlier made in the petition were reiterated.
13. Hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties while going through the paper books.
14. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners citing Krishan Lal and others Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another 2008(3) Recent Services Judgments 431 (P&H) has urged that once the pay parity had been maintained, the same could not be disturbed on revision of pay scales. In this authority, pay parity was maintained but the petitioners were granted revised pay scales only w.e.f. 3.11.1989 and not w.e.f. 1.1.1986. It was held that the petitioners shall be deemed to have been granted pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989 and would be entitled to all other consequential benefits. Support has also been sought from Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh Versus Deva Singh, Law Officer and others 2012(1) Service Cases Today 745 (P&H). In this authority, Legal Assistants, Law Officers and Deputy Senior Manager (Law) in the Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh had been equated with that of Assistant District Attorneys, Deputy District Attorneys and District Attorneys working in the State of Haryana respectively. It was held that equation of posts could not be disturbed at the whims and fences of the State Government refusing to grant approval whenever there is revision of pay scale in the cadre of Assistant District Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -6- Attorneys, Deputy District Attorneys and District Attorneys working with the State. It was further held that when parity was being maintained, it would result into automatic revision of pay scales of Legal Assistants, Law Officers and Deputy Senior Manager (Law) in the State Financial Corporation.
15. Seeking support from Haryana State Biologists Association Versus The State of Haryana 1994(3) S.C.T. 198 (P&H), it is urged that parity of pay scales which is granted and continues to be valid for a long time, cannot be disturbed without the authority of law. It was also held that if the pay scales are revised, one category cannot be denied the revision of pay scales. Citing Ram Pal Versus State of Punjab 1996 (4) RSJ 549 (P&H) it is urged that once pay parity was maintained and Statistical Assistants working in different departments of Punjab Government had been placed on identical pay scales, in subsequent and successive revision of pay scales, parity of their pay scales was required to be maintained. It was held that once the Government decides to equate pay scales of certain posts with other posts, it is not open to discriminate between the two at the time of subsequent revisions and that parity of pay could not be disturbed without authority of law. In this authority, Statistical Assistants selected pursuant to one interview held for them were allocated to different departments though who were having higher merit, were allocated to Agriculture Department whereas others were sent to other different departments of the State. It was held that they could not be discriminated in the matter of pay scales by the Government only because they are working in different departments. Yet another judgment reported as G.K.Nagpal Versus Punjab State Electricity Board 1998 (1) RSJ 762 (P&H) has been cited by the petitioners urging that once different posts even requiring different qualifications, are equated on the basis of similarity of qualifications and duties and are placed in the same pay scales, then in various pay revisions, different pay scales cannot be prescribed for such posts subsequently on the grounds of there being Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -7- different qualifications and that too without recording sufficient reasons justifying departure from earlier decisions of the authorities equating the posts. Reference has also been made to CWP No.23138 of 2010 titled Dr. Naresh Kumar Kataria and others Versus State of Punjab and others decided on 5.1.2012 by this Court. This decision had been rendered after conscious decision was taken by the State Government to equate the petitioners with members of Veterinary Service and hence equivalence in pay scale was ordered to be maintained at the subsequent revision of pay scales as well.
16. Per contra, stand of the respondents is that neither at any point of time there was any decision of the State Government to equate the petitioners with the Agriculture Inspectors now nomenclatured as Agriculture Development Officers, nor at any stage such conscious decision of granting equivalence in pay scales was taken for them. It is urged that the matter of equation of posts and parity of pay scales falls exclusively within the domain of specialised agencies like Pay Commissions etc. on the basis of recommendations of such agencies, final decision is taken by the appropriate Government. It is further claimed that in the absence of any order of equation by the Government, Court has no such expertise. In Sant Ram Versus State of Punjab 2004 (3) RSJ 145 (P&H), it was held by this Court that when there is difference in the nature of duties, qualifications and other considerations of service, doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be invoked. Para 7 of the judgment for ready reference is appended as below:
"It is a well settled law that the matter with regard to the question of posts and parity of pay scales falls exclusively within the domain of the specialised agencies like Pay Commissions and the final decision in this regard has to be taken by the competent government. The courts have hardly any expertise to adjudicate upon the intricate issues like equation of posts for the purposes of grant of equal pay scales. Reference in this regard may be made to State of U.P. And others v. J.P. Chaurasia and others, AIR 1989 SC 19 and Grih Kalyan Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -8- Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India and others JT 1991(1) SC 60. It is, however, equally well settled that if there is a consciously taken decision to equate two posts for the purpose of granting pay scale, it is impermissible to discriminate between incumbents of these posts at a subsequent stage while placing them in the revised pay scales so long as the decision to equate the two posts is not reversed on certain valid grounds. Wherever, there is equation of two posts, the right to claim same revised pay scale has been recognised in a serious of judgments by this court including the Division Bench judgment in The State of Punjab v. Dr. Gautam Mahajan and othres 1994 (2) RSJ 102 as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. And another v. Union of India and others AIR 1991 SC 1367."
17. At this stage, para 8 of this judgment for convenience and clarity of the concept is also reproduced as under:
"From the pleadings referred to above, particularly, in view of the stand taken by the respondents in para 5 of the written statement, no equation of the post of Senior Laboratory attendant vis a vis clerk is discernible. In the absence of any conscious decision equating the post of Senior laboratory attendant with that of clerks, I am of the view that the petitioners have no legal right to claim the same revised higher pay scales as have been granted to the cadre of clerks. further, in the light of difference in the nature of duties, qualifications and other conditions of service, even the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be invoked by the petitioners. I, therefore, find no merit so far as the petitioners' claim for the grant of higher revised pay scales, at pat with the clerks, is concerned."
18. In State of Punjab and another Versus Surjit Singh and others 2010(1) SLR 678 (Supreme Court) cited by learned counsel for the respondents, it was held that for applicability of doctrine of equal pay for equal work, applicability of mode of appointment was relevant factor. Yet another decision cited by learned counsel for the respondents is Sunder Dass Ahlawat Versus State of Haryana 2000 (1) S.C.T. 795 of a Division Bench of this Court where parity in pay scales was sought by Steno-Typists Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -9- with pay scales of Sub-Divisional Clerks where qualification for both the posts was matriculation and prior to 1.1.1986 both the posts were in same pay scale. Both the posts were part of State Service Group-C, Ministerial Establishments of Subordinate Offices. In this authority, it was held as under:
"We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the question regarding the nature of duties attached to each post and pay scales that should be fixed for each category of employees are matters for the expert committees like the Pay Commissions to determine and this Court in the very nature of things cannot examine those mattes. Merely because more than one categories of employees in different departments were given the same scale of pay prior to 1.1.1986 will not justify the appellants to claim that the parity should be maintained even in different departments were given the same scale of pay prior to 1.1.1986 will not justify the appellants to claim that the parity should be maintained even after the revision of pay scales. The fact that the appellants were drawing the same scale of pay as those of Sub Divisional Clerks would not lead to the inference that they were put at par by the Government by a conscious decision. The fallacy in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants will be noticed immediately when we find that even Wild Life Inspectors were put in the same scale of pay as that of the appellants prior to 1.1.1986 and after revision they have been given even a higher scale of Rs.1350-2200. If the arguments of the appellants were to be accepted then the Sub Divisonal Clerks should have been given parity in the pay scale with the Wile Life Inspectors as well who were discharging totally different duties in different set of circumstances. We are of the view that the employees belonging to a particular category could insist on parity in the pay scales being maintained only if at any earlier point of time the Government by a conscious decision had equated the two categories of employees at part for purposes of pay scale after considering their nature of duties and the conditions of their service."
19. Yet another judgment referred to by counsel for the respondents reported as State of Haryana and others Versus Charanjit Singh and others (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 321 is from the Apex Court. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are reproduced on the next page:
Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -10-"15. In State of Punjab Versus Devinder Singh (1998) 9 SCC 595, it was noted that the concerned Ledger Clerks were found to have been given similar work as regular Ledger Clerks. This Court without any further discussion or consideration held that concerned Ledger Clerks would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of Ledger Clerks. It was directed that this be paid for a period of three years prior to the filing of the Writ Petition. It seems that attention of this Court was not brought to the earlier authorities, which lay down when the principle of equal pay for equal work can apply. Also we are unable to accept the finding that for similar work the principle of equal pay applies. Equal pay can only be given for equal work of equal value.
x x x
17. In Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana (1987) 4 SCC 634 this Court held that if the duties and functions of the temporary appointees and regular employees are similar there cannot be discrimination in pay merely on the ground of difference in modes of selection. It was held that the burden of proving similarity in the nature of work was on the aggrieved worker. We are unable to agree with the view that there cannot be discrimination in pay on the ground of differences in modes of selection. As has been correctly laid down in Jasmer Singh's case (supra) persons selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority can be granted a higher pay scale as they have been evaluated by competent authority and in such cases payment of a higher pay scale cannot be challenged. Jasmer Singh's case has been noted with approval in Tarun K. Roy's case.
x x x
19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Tarun K. Roy lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -11- qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility.
x x x Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regards. In any event the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a Court, the Court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court, is on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective Writ Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -12- Petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors."
20. When the factual matrix of the petitions in hand are examined in the interface of law discussed earlier, it transpires that the concept of 'equal pay for equal work' is neither straight-jacket nor is an abstract doctrine. It has no mechanical application in every case. There are multiple factors which are relevant for decision of these petitions. Demonstratively, some of these may be recapitulated hereunder:
(i) For payment of equal pay, equal work has to be of equal value and quality;
(ii) Burden of proving equal work of equal value, equal quality and equal characteristics with similarly in the nature of work, is on the aggrieved persons;
(iii) Difference in the modes of selection is to be considered;
(iv) Comparative merit, seniority as also experience may form the basis for different pay scales; and
(vi) Functions may be the same but the responsibilities to be discharged may be different resulting in different pay scales.
21. Normal principle is that for applicability of concept of "equal pay for equal wages" various factors are to be evaluated in cases to be compared and this exercise must be left to be undertaken by expert bodies. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere, notwithstanding qualification of B.Sc. (Agriculture) being the basic educational requirement for recruitment to the post of Agriculture Masters in Education Department for teaching students as also for Agriculture Inspectors (redesignated as Agriculture Development Officers) in Agriculture Department.
Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -13-22. Parity is sought by Agriculture Masters of Education Department with Agriculture Inspectors (redesignated as Agriculture Development Officers) in Agriculture Department as also with Agriculture Development Officers (Fodder) in Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department as also with Soil Conservation Inspectors (Soil Conservation Officer), Survey/Research Assistant Soil Survey Assistants of Soil and Water Conservation and Waste Land Development Department.
23. It is a conceded fact that successive Pay Commissions of 1968, 1978 and 1986 never equated these posts. Even the much hyped cabinet decision of 19.8.1992 repeatedly referred to by counsel for the petitioners had nowhere held the case of Agriculture Masters to be equal with other posts such as Agriculture Inspectors etc.
24. It is also not disputed that there is no common recruitment for all these posts from where, after selection the selectees are appropriated for service in different other departments. Even nature of duties of Agriculture Masters and of incumbents of various posts in other departments are drastically different in structure and functional profile without any semblance of similarity. Merely because Agriculture Inspectors and incumbents of other posts in other different departments where basic qualification for recruitment is B.Sc. (Agriculture), go to villages and disseminate information about various methods of improving soil quality and agriculture produce in terms of the policies of the Government, is not a circumstance to take teaching of students by Agriculture Masters to be of the same type.
25. Working hours, functional profile as also procedure and methods of Agriculture Masters in discharge of their duties are entirely different. Needless to state that even working hours of Agriculture Masters are far less than the working hours spent by Agriculture Inspectors and Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -14- incumbents of other departments. By no means, all these posts may be said to be identical. Rather, duties are starkingly different and there is no parity among several posts.
26. Work of Agriculture Masters is confined to teaching of the students and to giving practical training to them in the schools whereas Agriculture Inspectors besides doing office work have to spend a lot of time in the fields providing extension services to the farmers as also in giving them information about modern technology of farming and right amount of inputs to be used in the field of agriculture. They also provide a feedback regarding agriculture practices and the reforms required for increasing the agriculture output.
27. In addition to the discussion already made, some more aspects also need to be considered. These are as under:
(i) The petitioner Agriculture Masters and other Agriculture Inspectors are employees of different departments, belonging to differnt cadres and are covered by different service rules;
(ii) Kothari Commission reference about which has been made by the petitioners, had nothing to do with the pay scales of Agriculture Inspectors but had been constituted for revision of pay scales of college/university teachers;
(iii) The petitioners never represented before the proper forum for revision of pay scales. Neither any representation was made to 4th Pay Commission nor to the anomalies committees constituted thereunder;
(iv) Merely because recommendations regarding pay scales of Agriculture Masters were made by the consultant of the Education Department, the Government is not bound by the said recommendations as the proper forum for revision of pay scales is the pay commission only;Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.14171 of 1995 -15-
(v) The benefit of decision of Council of Ministers cannot be extended to the Agriculture Masters of the Education Department as their duties are different and posts are also not identical;
(vi) Whenever and wherever pay scales of Agriculture Masters had coincided with the pay scales of Agriculture Inspectors, it was not because of the same qualification having been prescribed for both the posts. These were either incidental or were earned after much of struggle but without decision of the authorities that there was parity of scales. Even otherwise, there is no order of equating the pay scales of all the employees having degree of B.Sc.
(Agriculture) including the Agriculture Masters and Agriculture Inspectors; and,
(vii) Agriculture Masters have also got future prospects.
Rather, it is a conceded fact by now that Agriculture Masters may be considered for promotion as headmasters if they have acquired qualification of B.Ed. and M.Ed. etc.
28. Thus, viewed from any angle, there is neither any similarity of work profile, procedures, methods, nature of duties nor of working hours and thus, there cannot be any parity of pay scales. Consequently, all the three petitions being without any merit are dismissed.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge December 21, 2013 'Yag Dutt'
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.
Yag Dutt 2013.12.28 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document