- (1.) The petitioners, who are 27 in number, are holding posts of Subject Experts/Assistant Directors/Artists/Chief Librarian, in the Academic wing of the Punjab School Education Board. Their contention is that despite recommendations by the Board and approval by the Finance Secretary, 4-tier pay scales which were to be accorded to them, had not been implemented. The contention is that after the previous round of litigation in CWP No.19692 of 2005 with a direction to the respondent-Board to consider the representation of the petitioner, a 6-members Special Committee of the Board headed by the Principal Secretary had looked into the matter and the Special Committee had recommended the revised 4-tier pay scales on 06.07.2006. The recommendations were placed before the Chairman, who agreed with the recommendations on 20.07.2006 (Annexure P-13). The recommendations of the Special Committee along with the orders of the Chairman had been placed before the Board and the Board had also approved of the same (Annexure P-14). The Board specifically ordered on 17.08.2006 (Annexure P-15) that the 4-tier pay sale to the posts held by the petitioners would be granted in terms of the Punjab Government notification dated 17.04.2000. Since an audit objection was that since the matter has a financial implication and, therefore, it has to be approved by a Finance Committee, it was placed before the Finance Committee which approved the recommendations on 02.11.2006 (Annexure P-17). The recommendations of the Finance Committee were again put before the Board and approved by the Board on 03.11.2006 (Annexure P-18). The Board again issued an order reiterating and reaffirming the earlier orders on 17.11.2006 (Annexure P-19). Since all the recommendations did not translate in terms of the actual benefits, the petitioners filed a writ petition after giving a representation for implementation of the orders (Annexure P-20).
(2.) The contention in reply by the respondents 1 and 2 is that the Subject Expert Grade-I and Subject Expert Grade-II in the scales of 2400-4000 and 2000-3500 respectively were merged on 01.01.1986 and put on 3-tier pay scale effective from 01.01.1986 at 2200-4000; after 8 years in the scale of 3000-4500; and after 18 years in the scale of 3700-5000. The person, who had been given 3-tier pay scale could not again be given the benefit of ACP scheme as per the instructions of the State Government. However, on the recommendations of the 4 th Pay Commission, the initial pay scales of the Subject Experts were converted to 7220-11660 and a 4-tier pay scale had been approved under the ACP scheme after 4, 9 and 14 years of regular service for direct recruitment posts. 9 categories had been identified but there was no mention about the Subject Expert category. They were, therefore, given the conversion scales as per the recommendations of the 4 th Pay Commission.
(3.) There are inbuilt safeguards in the recommendations as approved by the Finance Department by stating that at no stage of service any employee of the Board, who shall be benefitted by the 4-tier pay scale, shall draw a higher salary by virtue of the higher scales of pay with reference to the scale of pay of Punjab Government service performing corresponding/equivalent functions. It has ensured that the proposal would not lead to any inter se seniority disturbance or distortion of existing line of promotion. The additional financial liability itself was to be borne by the Punjab School Education Board with its own resources and shall in no case be the liability of the State Government. It will be impermissible for the State to deny to the petitioners the benefit of implementation of the recommendations already made. I find that on 20.12.2011, this Court had directed the Principal Secretary, Finance, to file additional affidavit when it was sought to be contended by the petitioners that the nominee of the Government was also present in the meeting of the Board. An additional affidavit has also been filed by KBS Sidhu, Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, wherein it is stated that no member of the department of Finance, Government of Punjab, was invited in the Special Committee and in the absence of any representative from the Department of Finance, the Special Committee in the meeting held on 06.07.2006 recommended the grant of all consequential benefits to the concerned employees from the date mentioned in the State Government's letter dated 17.04.2000. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners admits that no nominee was actually present at the meeting but the meetings were always conducted after due information to the Government and even the proceedings of the Board were circulated to the Finance Secretary. This will only mean that there is no question of estoppel against the contentions now raised by the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab. There was no actual presence of the representative from the Department of Finance.;