Swatanter Kumar, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that anomaly was created by the respondents by equating the basic pay scales of Haryana Agriculture Services Class I and Haryana Agriculture Services Class II posts w.e.f. 1.5.1990.. Class II post in the agriculture department of the Haryana State are feeder posts to Class I posts and as such they could not have been equated at any given point of time.
(2.) IT is not necessary to go into the detailed facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition. In as much as the facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioners who were appointed to Class II posts in the Haryana agriculture department were getting different pay scales and when subsequently promoted to Class I posts were getting different pay scales for different periods. The anomaly as afore -referred was created on 1.4.1990 by the respondents. JUDGEMENT_169_LAWS(P&H)7_2001.htm The petitioners moved representations to the respondents and last representation was submitted in the year 1994. Respondents then conceded to the request of the employees and removed this anomaly in the pay scales ot the two different posts but it was removed w.e.f. 1994 itself. Resultantly, the grievance of the petitioners in regard upon to the period from 1990 to 1994 still persisted and after serving notice upon respondents, the present petition was filed.
(3.) THE above averments of the petitioners, as made in para 2 of the writ petition, have not been disputed by the respondents. Intact, the claim of the respondents is that in order to make minimum number of pay scales, such steps were taken by the Government and separate rules govern them as such the government was competent to fix new pay scales.;