Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmod Singh Patyal vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12812 of 1990 (O&M)
Date of decision:16.04.2012
Parmod Singh Patyal, Additional English Clerk, Office of District &
Sessions Judge, Patiala, and others.
...Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab, through Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab,
Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. All the petitioners are the employees of State of Punjab posted in the Patiala Sessions Division. They have arrayed as parties, besides the official respondents being the Chief Secretary to the Government, the Registrar of the High Court and the District and Sessions Judge (respondents 1 to 3), all persons in the clerical cadre working in various positions as Copyist, Ahalmad, Reader, Nazir as respondents 4 to 38. The petitioners have a grievance that the grant Civil Writ Petition No.12812 of 1990 (O&M) -2- of senior scale and selection grade after 5 and 10 years of service which were allowed for persons in the clerical cadre had not been extended to the Stenographers, although they were put in the same integrated seniority list. In the joint seniority list issued on 21.05.1988, the petitioners claimed that they figured at serial Nos.51, 48, 49, 85, 80 and 86 respectively, while the respondents 4 to 38 figured somewhere at serial Nos.52 to 96. The Rules framed by the High Court under Section 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act envisaged a joint cadre for members of 'ministerial establishment' including Clerks, Ahalmad, Copyist, Steno typists etc. The petitioners would reproduce instructions given by the High Court in its administrative wing on 19.05.1990 to all the District and Sessions Judges to the effect that, 'mere upgradation or creation of a post with different nomenclature would not mean (that ) a separate cadre is to be carved out and that therefore Stenographers/Stenotypists ought not to be treated as separate cadre and they form part of the joint cadre in terms of Rule II(a) of the High Court Rules and Orders Volume-I, Chapter 18-A.' By Order No.111, dated 20.09.1990, the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, had designated as many as 73 Junior Assistants and granted to them selection grade of Rs.1500- 2640. Of them, respondents 4 to 8 had been actually juniors to the petitioners 1 to 3, who had been placed in the grade of Rs.1200- 2100. This anomaly was cast away by the High Court in its Full Court meeting when it decided, "it is essential in the interest and Civil Writ Petition No.12812 of 1990 (O&M) -3- efficient administration of justice to upgrade the posts of only Steno- typists/Stenographers working in the Judicial Courts to the scale of Stenographer/Personal Assistant" and addressed a letter to the Secretary, Punjab Government on 10.08.1982 to sanction the upgradation of posts. The difficulty experienced by the Stenographers was also noticed by an Inspecting High Court Judge when the Stenographers were leaving the posts on account of inadequate scales of pay which were required to be revised. The petitioners have extracted several other reminders that had gone from the High Court to the Government and particularly the one sent on 23.03.1985 pointing out to the fact of the grant of pay scale of Rs.950-1800 with initial start of Rs.1000, the selection grade of Rs.1200-2100 after 5 years service and no grade after 10 years of service was grossly discriminatory. The specific grievance of the petitioners, as reflected through the petition after extracting the observations of the administrative wing of the High Court and the communication to the Government, is that the petitioners were still working on lower grades than respondents 4 to 38, who were all juniors to the petitioners in terms of length of service. This anomaly gets acute if we notice the fact that a unified seniority list has been prepared and within the same list, a class of persons, who were working as Clerks obtained to a benefit of upgradation of the scales, while Stenotypists were being denied.
Civil Writ Petition No.12812 of 1990 (O&M) -4-
2. In the written statement filed by respondents 2 and 3, namely, the District and Sessions Judges, it is admitted that the seniority list had been prepared as per the directions of the High Court in its administrative side for Stenotypists as well as the Clerks and the petitioners and respondents 4 to 38 were included in a joint seniority list at the places mentioned already in the earlier paragraph. The Government by its notification dated 15.06.1990 had granted the respective scales of pay to the Clerks and Stenotypists within the ministerial establishment but they were not the same. The notification provided as follows:-
Ministerial Establishment:
Category Basic entry After minimum After minimum scale period of 5 years period of 10 years service service Clerk 950-1800 1200-2100 (to be 1500-2640 (to be designated as designated as Senior Clerk) Junior Assistant) Stenotypist 950-1800 1200-2100 (to be No Scale granted designated as Stenotypist Grade-I) It can be noticed that the basic entry scale for both Clerks and Stenotypists are the same and after a minimum of 5 years of service, a Clerk as a Senior Clerk would obtain to a scale of Rs.1200-2100, while a Stenotypist would be designated as a Stenotypist Grade-I at a scale at par with a Senior Clerk, namely, Rs.1200-2100. After 10 years of service, a Senior Clerk would obtain a further designation Civil Writ Petition No.12812 of 1990 (O&M) -5- as Junior Assistant and be placed at a scale of Rs.1500-2640, while a Stenotypist Grade-I would obtain no further upgradation either in designation or in the scale. The respondents have admitted that they had made recommendation to the Government, for, according to them, sanction for conversion/upgradation of the post of Stenotypist had been made. It is also admitted that the High Court at all times envisaged that the Stenotypists were not to be treated as a separate cadre and they would form part of a joint cadre in terms of Rule II(a) of the High Court Rules. The respondents would also admit that by a communication dated 28.03.1994, the Administrative Branch had already requested the Government to extend the facility of stenography assistance on the scale given to Clerks, but the same has not been considered. The statement virtually concedes the fact that in the notification issued on 15.06.1990, at the time of framing of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Third Amendment) Rules 1990, although the High Court instructions provided that the Stenotypists and Clerks would be borne on a joint cadre, they could not be treated as regards the scales of pay. Similarly, the Government instructions dated 15.06.1990 provided for two different scales at the stage of completion of 10 years where a selection grade was provided to Clerks and not to Stenotypists. The recommendation for upgradation as made through a communication of the 2nd respondent dated 23.08.1994 appears to be pending with Civil Writ Petition No.12812 of 1990 (O&M) -6- the Government without any decision therefor. The statement records inability of the High Court to do any more than exercising the power of superintendence over the establishment of the High Court and the Subordinate Courts but as regards the employees of Subordinate Courts in the State of Punjab, they are State Government employees for all intents and purposes and they would also be governed only by the rules of the State Government. The inaction on the part of the Government in spite of the recommendation of the Administrative Branch of the High Court pointing out to the gross anomaly that has steeped, I hold to be unjustified and further find that the denial of selection grade on completion of 10 years to persons in stenography line, although persons in the clerical side in the ministerial establishment of the same High Court and cast in the same seniority list, have been provided the scales, to be discriminatory. All the petitioners and persons like the petitioners, who occupied the stenography line, would obtain similar benefit as given to persons in clerical line in the ministerial establishment and earn the higher grades on completion of 10 years at par with the scales admissible to the Junior Assistants.
3. The petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as sought for and the arrears shall be calculated and released to them within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Civil Writ Petition No.12812 of 1990 (O&M) -7- 1st respondent shall be at liberty to bring the relevant rules in conformity with the judgment if it has not already been done.
4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.04.2012 sanjeev