Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar Sharma And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 30 July, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
Rathore Poonam
C.W.P.No.12572 of 1993 -1- 2013.08.02 12:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:-30.07.2013
C.W.P.No.12572 of 1993
Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
The State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.18381 of 2008
Ramesh Chander Sareen and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
The State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
***
Present:- Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate and Mr.Sehajbir Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.12572 of 1993.
Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.18381 of 2008.
Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab.
***
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP No.12572 of 1993 and CWP No.18381 of 2008. The petitioners are employees of the Special Trade Institutes, one going by the name of Government Institute of Textile, Chemistry and Knitting Technology, Ludhiana and other by the name of Government Tanning Institute, Jalandhar.
Rathore PoonamC.W.P.No.12572 of 1993 -2- 2013.08.02 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document The grievance of the petitioners is that they are being discriminated insofar as the pay-scales admissible to them as compared to the scales admissible to the employees of the Government Polytechnic Institutes. The petitioners in CWP No.12572 of 1993 are Principals, Junior Lecturer and Demonstrator while in CWP No.18381 of 2008, they are Lecturer Practical Training cum Principal, Foreman Tanning & Footwear and Instructor Footwear and Sports.
The respondents denied this claim to the petitioners by stating that they cannot be equated with the employees of the Government Polytechnic Institutes as no such posts of Demonstrators, Instructors or Foreman existed in such Polytechnics run by the State. It has further been stated in the reply and urged before this Court on behalf of the respondents that the 'principle of equal pay for equal work' cannot be applied to the cause of the petitioners on account of the fact that both sets of employees are performing different functions and are qualified differently.
The petitioners referred to the decisions taken by the Competent Authorities from time to time equating the services of the petitioners with those of the employees of Government Polytechnics. Such decisions have been taken as early as in the year 1967-1968, copies of which have been appended with the writ petition as Annexures P-6 and P-7.
It has not been denied by the respondents that at least the posts of Principals and Lecturers are available in the Government Polytechnic even though the other posts of Demonstrators, Instructors and Foreman are not existing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the Rathore Poonam C.W.P.No.12572 of 1993 -3- 2013.08.02 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document petitioners are equally qualified as the employees of the Government Polytechnic and essentially performing the same function of imparting vocational training to the students and, therefore, there is no occasion to differentiate between the two sets of employees, more particularly when in the year 2011, respondents have themselves once again admitted such a parity with the employees of both such institutes and held them entitled to the same pay-scale. The notification dated 21.12.2011 is a decision in this regard which is extracted herein-below:-
"I am directed to invite a reference to Punjab Government Notification No.5/10/09-5FP1/207, dated 27.5.2009 and to say that the Governor of Punjab is pleased to decide that the basic scale of pay of the teaching personnel of the Special Trade Institutes shall be equal to the basic pay scales of the corresponding posts in the Polytechnics. Accordingly, the scales of pay of the following posts of the Special Trade Institutes shall stand further revised as under
with effect from the 1st December, 2011:- Name of Pre- Revised scale of pay Revised Scale of pay w.e.f.
the post revise w.e.f.1.1.2006 1.12.2011
d scale
of pay Pay Grade Initial Pay Band Grade Initial Pay
Band Pay Pay Pay
Lecturer 7000- 10300 15600-
10980 - 39100
34800 4400 17420 5400 21000
Senior 7000- 10300 15600-
Lecturer 10980 - 39100
34800 4400 17420 6600 25250
Head of 7220- 10300 15600-
Departme 11660 - 39100
nt 34800 5000 18450 7800 31520
Rathore Poonam
C.W.P.No.12572 of 1993 -4- 2013.08.02 12:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Name of Pre- Revised scale of pay Revised Scale of pay w.e.f.
the post revise w.e.f.1.1.2006 1.12.2011
d scale
of pay Pay Grade Initial Pay Band Grade Initial Pay
Band Pay Pay Pay
Principal 7220- 10300 37400-
11660 - 67000
34800 5000 18450 8700 46100
2. The pay in the above mentioned revised scales of pay effective from the 1st December, 2011 shall be fixed prospectively and there shall be no element, whatsoever, of retrospectivity in this regard and there will be no question of payment of arrears or of fixation of pay on notional basis from any previous date."
It is, thus, evident that all through out, the petitioners have been equated with the employees of the Government Polytechnics. Thus, the stand of the respondents in denying the parity to the petitioners does not seem to be based on any sustainable logic.
Considering the matter in its entirety, I am of the view that the respondents cannot discriminate against the petitioners in the matters of pay-scale and rather the petitioners justifiably can be granted similar pay- scale being of a specialized trade as against their counter-parts in Government Polytechnics, who are imparting vocational training in general streams of engineering. To the mind of this Court, the functional arena of both the employees would be same or similar and, thus, depriving them of the pay-scales as admissible to their counter-parts would be discriminatory.
The writ petitions are, therefore, accepted and the Rathore Poonam C.W.P.No.12572 of 1993 -5- 2013.08.02 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document petitioners are held entitled to the benefits of pay-scales at par with the employees of the Government Polytechnics. However, the arrears should be restricted to 38 months. Since all the petitioners have superannuated, the respondents would release the consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
July 30, 2013 ( MAHESH GROVER) poonam JUDGE