UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH Vs. MEGH NATH
LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-4
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 07,2014

UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH Appellant
VERSUS
MEGH NATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL J. - (1.) THE private respondents numbering 1 to 85 were the original applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, claiming parity of pay scales with the employees doing similar work in the Electrical Wing of the same Engineering Department where they were carrying on the work as Senior Assistants/Junior Assistants/U.D.C/Senior Clerks/L.D.C/Clerks. It is their say that there is identity of performance of duties between the Public Health Wing where the private respondents are deployed with the Electricity Wing of the same Engineering Department. The two departments have a separate bills distribution system which was combined w.e.f. 01.04.1991.
(2.) IN the original petition before the Tribunal, it has also been alleged that the pay scales of the Punjab Electricity Board had been adopted by the Electricity Wing of the Engineering Department while the same had not been implemented on parity with the Public Health department. The case seeking similar relief was stated to have been allowed by the Tribunal and sustained by this High Court. The occasion to approach the Tribunal arose on account of rejection of the representation of the private respondents. The Tribunal viewed in favour of the private respondents in terms of the impugned order dated 29.04.2008. The rationale for conclusion has been set out in paras No. 9 and 10 of the impugned order which reads as under: - "9. It is an admitted fact that prior to 1.4.1991, the work relating to preparation and checking of water bills and electricity bills was being carried out separately in the respective departments of Public Health and Electricity Department. However, with effect from 1.4.1991, a combined pattern of both these bills was prepared. It was thereafter that certain categories engaged in the task of water distribution/meter reading etc. realized that disparity of pay scales existed between these two categories of employees on the one hand and those working in the Electricity Department performing same and similar duties and functions. There being no water bill Wing in the Electricity Department, the Punjab Pay Commission had no occasion to consider the claim of the applicants viz.a.viz. their counterparts in the Electricity Department. 10. The fact cannot be denied that the applicants counterparts serving in the Electricity Department are getting higher pay scale than the applicants. With their rejoinder, the applicants have annexed a comparative chart of duties performed by the applicants and their counterparts in the Electricity Department as Annexure A -3/A. A perusal of the same shows that duties performed by the Clerks/Junior Assistants/Cashier/Senior Superintendents of both sides are identical and same. The respondents have not rebutted this comparative chart of duties by filing any document. Both categories of employees are working under the same Chandigarh Administration and it is claimed that their qualifications for the respective posts are also the same. In such a scenario, granting higher scale to one set of employees and a lower pay scale to the other is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Infact, the claim of the applicants is similar to Bill Distributors who were applicants in OA No. 1015/CH/2001 which was decided in their favour by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2002 which has also been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, as pointed out above."
(3.) WE are in complete agreement with the aforesaid view. It is undisputed that post 01.04.1991 a combined pattern has been adopted for preparation of bills for both the Departments of Public Health and Electricity in the Engineering Department. It is at that stage that the issue of disparity of pay scales came into existence. The private respondents annexed a comparative chart of duties performed by two groups of employees which showed identity of work and this was not refuted by the petitioners/department before us. Despite this, the differentiation in pay was thus held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.