Augustine George Masih J. - (1.) C.M. No.11107 of 2012 Application is allowed and the written statement of respondent No.4 is taken on record. Civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CWP No.23699 of 2011
(2.) Petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that they are not being paid the minimum of the regular pay-scales on the post of Instructors in the Industrial Training Institute, Kaithal, which is being paid to the regular employees. Asserting this right reliance has been placed upon the letter dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Directorate General of Employment and Training, wherein it has been so mentioned. Reliance has also been placed upon the letter issued by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Haryana Government, Industrial Training and Technical Education Department, dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P-5) to contend that the petitioners are entitled to the minimum of the pay scales at par with newly appointed regular employees. Reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in titled ' Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab and others' CWP No.14796 of 2003 decided on 11.11.2011 (Annexure P-12) in support of this contention. Claim has also been made in the writ petition that the petitioners No.1 and 2 being female ITI Instructors have not been granted the benefit of maternity leave as per instructions issued by the respondents dated 22.6.2000 (Annexure P-8).
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are entitled to grant of minimum of the pay-scales as has been fixed by the letter dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Government of India, which has been accepted by the respondents as is apparent from the letter dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Industrial Training and Technical Education Department. He asserts that there cannot be distinction between a contractual employee and an employee working on regular post specially when they are performing the same duties. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 05.4.2010 (Annexure P-6) wherein it has been stated that the ITI Instructors, who enter into a contract with the Government, would be entitled to the minimum of pay of Rs.span 12,500/- per month, whereas, those, who have chosen not to execute the said contract of the agreement would be entitled to the DC rates as per their terms of appointments. On this, counsel for the petitioner asserts that this is violative of the principal of the equality as merely the basis of the contract or nature of appointment cannot be made the basis for grant of different pay/salary. He further stated that all the petitioners were appointed initially on DC rates but some of the petitioners have executed the contract and are now being paid consolidated monthly salary of Rs.span 12,500/-. This the counsel for the petitioner contends is discriminatory in nature and cannot be said to be in accordance with law. He accordingly prays that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.;