- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.05.2002 Annexure P-11 passed by respondent No.2, whereby parity in the revision of pay scale was denied to the petitioners. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of constitution of the respondent-Board in the year 1971, petitioners were treated at par with the Engineers serving with the respondent-State for the purpose of granting pay scales. Thereafter, the pay scales were revised w.e.f 01.04.1979 and petitioners were treated at par with the Engineers serving with the respondent-State. Again, when the pay scales were revised w.e.f 01.01.1986, petitioners were again, treated at par with the Haryana Government employees. Recommendations of respondent-Board made vide Annexure P-1 were duly approved by the respondent-State vide Annexure P-2. He further submits that the pay scales of the engineers of Public Works Department (PWD) of the respondent-State were revised by the State Government w.e.f 01.05.1989 vide Annexure P-3. Petitioners were again treated at par and the same revised pay scales were granted to them which were granted to the Engineers serving in the Public Works Department of the respondent-State w.e.f 01.05.1989 vide order Annexure P-5.
(3.) Again, at the time of next revision of pay scales w.e.f 01.01.1996, the respondent-Board righty treated the petitioners at par and made strong recommendations in their favour, after taking a conscious decision vide communication (Annexure P-10) dated 08.02.2002. Complete background was given fully justifying the benefit of revised pay-scale treating the petitioners at par with engineers of PWD of the State, for the purpose of revision of pay scales. Learned senior counsel would next contend that this time respondent No.2 misdirected itself, while completely misreading the factual background for treating the petitioners at par for more than one occasions, while passing the impugned non-speaking order Annexure P-11. He submits that once the petitioners have been treated at par on more than one occasions, respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to treat the petitioners differently at the later point of time because there was no change in the circumstances. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgments in " Kirpal Jeet Vs The State of Punjab and another,1987 4 SLR 594, "Dr. Sukhdev Singh and others Vs The State of Punjab and another", 1991 2 SLR 336, "Babu Ram and others Vs State of Haryana and others", 2000 5 SLR 353, "Pritam Dass and others Vs State of Punjab and another", 2000 5 SLR 509 and order dated 12.11.2014 passed by this Court in CWP No.16850 of 1995 titled as "Satya Parkash Verma and another Vs State of Haryana and others". Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order Anneuxre P-11, by allowing the present writ petition.;