LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus DHARAM PAUL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
L A THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. v. DHARAM PAUL AND ORS. ' JANUARY 22, 1996 B [K RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) ·Service Law : Stepping up of pay-Industrial Training institrites/Centres in. State of C Punjab-,-lnstructors-Pay .scale· of-Earlier all instrnctor/getti1;g same pay scale-Later instrnctors of 8 trades give11 different paj scal~Subsequently all instructors given one and same pay scale but instrnctors of 8 trades allowed to retain the higher pay scale as personal to them-Fixation• of salary in revised pay scale-Salary of Instructors getting higher pay scale before revision fu:ed according to their'pre-revised salary-Clain• of other instrnctors for D stepping up their pay alleging that salaries of their juniors were fu:ed at a higher stage-field, not maintainable. · . .\ The present appeal was filed by the State Government of Punjab against the order of the High Court allowing the claim of the Instructors E of Industrial Training Institutes/Centres to step up their pay. prior to 1961 all instructors of Industrial Training Institutes/Centres in the State were getting the'same pay scale. Thereafter pay scales of instructors of 8 trades were changed. The instructors who were not covered under those 8 trades, nnsuccessfully challenged the said classification before the High Court. In . 1970 the State Government revised the staffing pattern of instructors in F all trades and placed them all in the same pay scale. However, the scale of pay the 181 instructors of 8 trades were getting was allowed as personal to them. In the year 1976 the pay scale in respect of all the instructors was . fu_rther revised and the pay of individual instructor was fixed in the revised scale depending upon the salary he was drawing in the pre-revised scale. G ,. In 1989 the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction to get their pay stepped up alleging that 181 Instructors, of 8 grades drawing higher salary were junior to them. The State resisted the ~laim contending that the respondents having failed in the earlier writ petition, the division in pay scale had become final and when all the' H instructors W'ere brought under- one pay scale the instructors of 8 trades 826 L , J I i \ STATEv. DHARAMPAUL[PATTANAIK,J.] ' . ' . 827 getting higher salary were allowed to draw the pay scale as personal to A . them, and therefore when the pay scale was further revised, the pay of the individual instructors was rightly fixed according to the salary they we..;, drawing before the revision. The Single judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and the letters patent appeal filed by the State Govern· ment was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench. B Allowing the .appeal, this Court } HELD: The High Court eom~itted an erro~ by directlng step'ping up of the pay of the respondents on the assumption th~t the juniors are getting a higher amount. While fixing the pay in the n.W pay scale as revised in 1976, C necessarily the higher pay earlier draw,; by 181 instructors belonging to the 8 trades was taken into account and they got a higher su.m. In the cir· cumstances the question of stepping np of the pay of respondents does not 3rise. Those.181 instructors originally may have been.junior to these . respondents but by virtue of the Government order dated 23rd February, '1962 they having been given higher scale of pay than the re~pondents and · D the same benefit having been continued as personal pay to them, in the ·subsequent revision of the pay scale and the persons similarly placed like respondents having challenged and lost in the earlier 'Vrit Petitions it is not open to them to reopen the matter. [829-G, 830-B-C) E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC110N : Civil Appeal Nos. 2206- 2209 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.94 & 1.11.94 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P .A. No. 439/94, C.W.P; No. 13546, 5346 of ~ F '·. Sanjay Bansal and G.K. B.;,,.al for the Appellants. P.P. Rao, R.K. Chopra and P.N. Puri for the Respondents: . The Judgment of the Court was deliv~red by PATTANAIK," J. Leave granted These appeals by the State of Punjab are directed against the judg- ment of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court which dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal in limini and confirmed the order of the learned G 'H 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R. A Single Judge. The question that arises for consideration is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.