Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh And Others vs Punjab State Co-Op Supply And Marketing ... on 31 January, 2020
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.33976 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:31.01.2020
Ravinder Singh and others
.......Petitioners
Versus
The Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.& anr.
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present:- Mr. Chirag Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioners.
*****
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.(Oral)
Petitioners are serving as Manufacturing Chemists under the Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited (Markfed).
Prayer raised in the instant petition is two fold; (i) Petitioners seek pay parity/identical pay-scale as is being granted to Manufacturing Chemists under Sugar Fed; (ii) Mandamus is sought directing the respondent-Federation to provide a promotion channel.
Counsel for the petitioners has been heard at length and the pleadings on record have been perused.
Apart from projecting a case that the petitioners as also their counter-parts under the Sugar Fed are holding posts carrying the same nomenclature, there is no material/document wherefrom this Court may infer that the petitioners while serving as Manufacturing Chemists under Markfed and their counter-parts under Sugar Fed are identically placed on 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 19:48:11 ::: CWP No.33976 of 2019 (O&M) -2- a number of relevant parameters viz. qualifications at the stage of entering into service, duties and responsibilities, channels of promotions etc. Furthermore, there is no document to show that the competent authority at any point of time has taken a conscious decision equating the post of Manufacturing Chemist under Markfed with those under Sugar Fed. Under such circumstances and in the absence of the necessary pleadings/material on record, the prayer for pay parity cannot be examined.
Similarly would be the position even as regards the prayer for providing promotional avenues is concerned. For the reasons best know to the petitioners, the relevant rules/standing orders governing the service conditions of the petitioners has not been placed on record. Counsel is not in a position to substantiate the assertion that there are no promotional avenues provided insofar as the post of Manufacturing Chemists are concerned.
In view of the above, no intervention in the light of the pleadings on record is warranted.
Petition disposed of.
It would, however, be open for the petitioners to agitate their claims/grievance by placing on record all relevant documents/material, if so advised.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
JUDGE
January 31, 2020
shweta
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 19:48:11 :::