Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) FEELING aggrieved against the order dated 4.1.2013 (Annexure P -4), passed by respondent No. 2, petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned order.
(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon averments taken in para 2 and 3 of the writ petition, submits that up to 15.2.1990, it where the petitioners who had been granted higher pay scales than the Assistant Mechanical Engineers of the respondent department, i.e. Department of Transport, Punjab. Qualifications required for the post on which the petitioners were working as well as for the post of Assistant Mechanical Engineers was graduation in Mechanical Engineering, under the same set of statutory rules namely, The Punjab Department of Transport Commercial Wing (State Service Class -II) Rules, 1984 ('Rules of 1984' for short). He also places reliance on the communications dated 24.8.2011 (Annexure P -1) and dated 12.7.2012 (Annexure P -3) wherein a comparative study has been carried out and finally, it was found that petitioners were entitled to be treated at par with the Assistant Mechanical Engineers, in the matter of pay scales. He would next contend that respondent No. 2 miserably failed to consider the matter in the correct perspective, while passing the impugned order dated 4.1.2013 (Annexure P -4), which was cryptic in nature and liable to be set aside. He concluded by submitting that once the respondent administrative department itself has found the petitioners entitled to be treated at par with the Assistant Mechanical Engineers, in their qualifications, method of recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities, there was no plausible reason with respondent No. 2 not to treat the petitioners at par with Assistant Mechanical Engineers, in the matter of pay scales. He prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition.
(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the State submits that recommendations made by the Additional Secretary of the respondent administrative department vide Annexures P -1 and P -3 were not sufficient for the purpose of treating the petitioners at par with the Assistant Mechanical Engineers. While referring to the averments taken in preliminary submissions, learned counsel for the State submits that since qualifications of the petitioners as well as Assistant Mechanical Engineers were not exactly the same, petitioners were not entitled to claim parity, in the matter of pay scale. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.;