M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE only issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether the source of recruitment alone could constitute a valid ground of classification for the purposes of grant of higher scale of pay.
(2.) IT has not been disputed before us that the writ Petitioner -Respondents have been working on the post of Telephone Mechanic and were promoted as such in the higher scale of pay from the post of Telephone Attendants. Sh. Gurmit Singh was appointed as Telephone Mechanics by direct recruitment and has been given higher scale of pay. However, without regard to educational qualification or presence of any other special circumstance constituting lawful basis for granting higher pay scale to the direct recruite, the pay scale of the writ Petitioner -Respondents has been kept lower than those appointed by way of direct recruitment. On first principle, the aforesaid differential treatment given to the promoted employees would be unsustainable because if an incumbent enters into one cadre i.e. Telephone Mechanic irrespective of his source, he looses the birth mark. Such an incumbent deserves to be accorded equal treatment alongwith all other members of service constituting the cadre of Telephone Mechanic. It is understandable if educational qualification has been made basis for granting of higher scale of pay to those who have been recruited by the mode of direct recruitment. However, this is not the situation prevailing in the present case. It is undisputed that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in a bunch of cases including C.W.P. No. 13466 of 1999 decided on 24.10.2008 (P -6). In that judgment, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in T.R. Bansal v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2005 (2) SLR 410. Against that order, even LPA No. 73 of 2009 preferred by the Appellants stands dismissed. It is appropriate to notice that it was also a case of Telephone Mechanic working in the Electricity Board -Appellant. We are of the view that the discriminatory treatment given to the promoted Telephone Mechanic in the matter of pay scale would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the appeal does not merit admission. The mere fact that Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 13466 of 1999 (supra) would not be a valid ground for admission of the appeal because within these jurisdiction the Division Bench judgment is final and binding on us. We have been informed that there is no interim order granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition.
(3.) AS a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.;