LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus PARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ST A TE OF PUNJAB A v. PARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS. OCTOBER 16, 2003 [BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] B Service Law : Parity in pay scales-Art-cum-Lattering Expert, Production Artist etc.-Claiming pay scales equivalent to Assistants in A and B class Offices C Both the categories were placed in the same scale pursuant to Third Punjab Pay Commission Report-Later, Government sanctioning higher pay scale to Assistants in 'A ' and 'B' Class Offices, but not to Art-cum-Lattering Experts etc.-Petition by tatters-High Court, relying on its earlier decision*, granting parity-Appeal by State-Held, since the decision on D · • which High Court relied on has been reversed, order of High Court set aside-Matter remanded to High Court-It would be desirable and/air in equity that other aspects of the matter may be considered and examined by the High Court, namely recommendations of the Third Punjab Pay Commission for same pay scale for the Assistants and the subsequent notifications issued by the Government revising the pay scales. E *Haryana Staie Biologists Associations v. State of Haryana and Anr., (1994) 2 PLR 389, stands overruled. State of UP. & Ors. v. UP. Sales Tax Officers Grade-II Association, F [2003) 6 sec 250, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2092 of 1997 . . From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.96 of the Punjab and G Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 10631 of 1995. WITH C.A. No. 2093 of 1997. H 887 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Ajay Bansal, Addi. Adv. General, Punjab, S.K. Das for R.S. Suri, for the Appellant. Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar for the Respondents. B The Order of the Court was delivered : The State of Punjab has preferred these appeals against the Judgments and orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court by whi<;h the respondents were held to be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986, which scale was made admissible earlier to the Assistants C working in Class A and Class B offices. The petitioners before the High Court, who are respondents in these appeals, form a category of officials consisting of Art-cum-Lattering Expert, Production Artist, Art Assistant, Layout Artist, Painting Artist and , D Artist-cum-Photographer. According to a chart furnished by the learned counsel for the State, it is evident that the scale of pay of these officials working under different designations indicate~ above, had been in the pay scale of Rs. 250-550. Later on with effect from l.1.1978, the Production Artists and Painting Artists were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1080 E whereas the remaining four posts were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 620- 1200. In the Third Punjab Pay Commission Report they were all placed in one scale, namely, Rs. 1500-2640 with effect from l.1.1986. As against the above, the case of the respondents before the High F Court was that the Assistants working in Class A and Class B offices have also been in the pay-scale of Rs. 600-1120 and Rs. 570-1080. They had also been recommended the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 by the Pay Commission. But later on, the State Government by notification issued on June 15, 1990, made the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 admissible to the aforesaid Assistants but the same treatment was not meted out to the G respondents by the Government though the Third Punjab Pay Commission had recommended one pay-scale for both. From the chart furnished by the learned counsel for the State of Punjab it appears that in 1968 when the scale of pay of Artist-cum-Photographers etc. had been in the scale ofRs. 250-550 the Assistants had been in the pay-scale of Rs. 160-400. Later on H they were brought in almost equal pay-scales, namely, Rs. 600-1120 and STATEv. PARAMJEET 889 Rs. 570-1080. In the Third Punjab Pay Commission, however, they had A been recommended the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2640 like the respondents. The High Court considering the above position and relying upon a decision of the same fiigh Court in the case of Haryana State Biologists Association • v. State of Haryana and Anr., (1994) 2 PLR 389, holding that once the parity in the pay-scales of two cadres of employees is granted the same B cannot be withdrawn or disturbed depriving one class or category of the same pay. The High Court thus found that a conscious decision was taken and the respondents who were peitioners in the High Court could not be deprived of the scale of pay o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.