- (1.) By this judgment we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1734 and 212 of 1989 and CWP No. 9280,11852 and 12943 of 1990. The facts are being taken from the first case. 1. The facts of the case are that the respondents were employed by the Department of Irrigation in the State of Punjab in the early part of 1970 in a newly created Division in the Irrigation Department known as 'Directorate of the Water Resources'. Apart from the routine posts which could be filled by transfer from amongst engineers working in the Irrigation Department, mere were some newly created posts of a specialised nature which were required to be filled in from those having special qualifications. A detailed discussion took place between the representative of the State of Punjab and a Central Team dealing with this matter and, vide letter dated 20th October, 1970 (appended as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition) issued by the Planning Department, the Staff required for the Directorate was duly sanctioned. Vide this letter the posts of Senior Hydrogeologost and Senior Design Engineer were equated with the post of Deputy Director and the posts of Hydrochemist, Junior Geologist and Junior Hydrogeologist were equated with the post of Assistant Design Engineer in the same pay scale as Class II posts, whereas the post of Senior Technical Assistant a newly created post in the Directorate, was not equated with any existing post in the Irrigation Department though it was placed higher to the post of Sectional Officer in the Engineering Wing. From the pleadings, it is also apparent that initially the posts in the Directorate were created for a period of ten years from 1971 to 1981 but were diereafter extended for another ten years from 1981 to 1991 and it is the conceded case that the said posts are still continuing. It has been asserted that during all these years the specialised posts remained equated with the respective posts in the Engineering Wing in the matter of pay scales and, as a sequel thereto, even the Second Pay Commission recommended the continuance of the parity that already existed. It is the conceded position that these proposals were largely accepted by the Government and the pay suggested for the employees of the Directorate was duty notified. It appears, however, that with regard to the members of the Engineering service the decision with regard to pay scales to be given to them was kept in abeyance and was subsequently notified on August 18, 1980, vide Annexure P-8 whereby the Engineering Wing was given a higher pay scale than that recommended by the Pay Commission and Vide Annexure P-9 dated January 14,1981 the Pay scales were further revised upwards for this Wing. Aggrieved by this disparity the respondents represented to the Government but the representation was turned down. The matter was thereafter taken to this Court and, as already indicated, the writ petition has been partly allowed leading to this appeal at the instance of the State Government and LPA No. 212 of 1989 by the opposite party claiming the reliefs denied by the learned single Judge.
(2.) Before the learned single Judge onfy two arguments were addressed : firstly, that the respondents were entitled to the scale of pay as given to the equated posts in the Engineering Wing of the Irrigation Department, and secondly, that the specialised posts in the Directorate should not be filled from the members of the Engineering Service as they did not have the necessary qualifications and if these appointments continued they would frustrate the possibility of the respondents being promoted to the higher posts in the Directorate. The learned single Judge found on a reading of Annexure P-1 that the post of Senior Hydrogeologist had been equated with the post of Deputy Director which post was always manned by a Senior Executive Engineer, the post of Junior Hydrogeologist to the post of Assistant Design Engineer and the post of Senior Hydrogeologist to that of Senior Design Engineer. It was also noticed that the pay scales of the various categories in the specialised posts had been revised as under by the Second Pay Commission :- Sr. No. Designation Existing Revised scale of scale of pay Pay. XX XX XX XX XX 6 Senior Hydrologist Rs. 800-1600 Rs. 1400-2000 7 Senior geophysicist Rs. 800-1600 Rs. 1400-2000 XX XX XX XX Xx 24. Junior Hydrogeologist Rs. 400-1100 Rs. 825-1700 25. Junior Geologist Rs. 400-1100 Rs. 825-1700 26.Hydrochemist Rs. 400-1100 Rs. 825-1700 XX XX XX XX XX It was also recorded by the learned single Judge that the equated posts in the Engineering Wing had a much higher scale of pay as per Annexure P-9, and accordingly reiying on K. K. Mehta and another vs. The State of Punjab and another,1983 3 SLR 732, Harsaran Singh vs. The State of Punjab and others,1984 2 SLR 384 and Kirpal Jeet vs. The State of Punjab,1987 4 SLR 594 held that once two posts had been equated there was no reason to discontinue that equation at a later stage on revision of pay scales. On this process of reasoning the learned Judge accepting the equation of posts mentioned above, and detailed in full in Annexure PI held that the respondents were entitled to a parity of pay scales with their counterparts in the Engineering Wing but as the Senior Technical Assistants in the Directorate could not claim equation with any post in the parent department, no benefit could be given to them. In the second point urged before him relief was, however, denied on the ground that those persons who had come from the Engineering Service to man the specialised posts in the Directorate had not been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition and, as such, no relief could be given in their absence although liberty was given to the Government to pass appropriate orders in this respect promptly.
(3.) Shri Jagmohan Singh Chaudhary, learned Addl. Advocate-General, has urged that the matter with regard to equation of posts and parity of pay scales was exclusively within the purview of specialised agencies such as the Pay Commissions and the ultimate decision was to be taken by the Government and, as such, no interference by the Court in these matters was called for. He has relied on State of UP and others vs. J. P. Chaurasia and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 19 and Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union vs. Union of India and others, 1991 1 JT 60;