Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pay -scale of Rs. 1640 -2900/ - with effect from 01.01.1986 to the petitioners and to fix their pay in accordance with the judgment dated 11.04.2008 (Annexure P -2) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 16743 of 2001, titled as 'M.L. Wadhwa & others v. State of Haryana', with all consequential benefits. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that vide notification dated 29.04.1987, Haryana Government revised the pay -scale of all its employees with effect from 01.01.1986. In a number of departments like PWD (B & R) feeder cadre posts of Junior Engineers (i.e. Road Inspector) were given the revised pay -scale of Rs. 1400 -2300/ - which was an anomaly thus created where the feeder cadre and promotional post was carrying the same pay -scale. The Government of Haryana considered it as an anomaly and granted the pay -scale of Rs. 1640 -2900/ - to all the Junior Engineers working in all the Government Departments with effect from 01.01.1992 vide letter dated 27.01.992 (Anneuxre P -1). This action of the respondents was challenged by the Junior Engineers of the Department of Public Health by filing CWP No. 16743 of 2001, titled as 'M.L. Wadhwa & others v. State of Haryana', claiming therein the grant of pay -scale of Rs. 1640 -2900/ - with effect from 01.01.1986. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.04.2008 (Anneuxre P -2).
(2.) JUNIOR Engineers of Irrigation Department, thereafter, approached this Court by filing CWP No. 13331 of 2008, titled as 'Shingara Singh Dhull & others v. State of Haryana & others', claiming therein revised pay -scale with effect from 01.01.1986 instead of 01.01.1992. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2009 observing therein that the distinction sought to be drawn by the State on the ground that the benefit of revised pay -scale was only granted to the Junior Engineers of Public Works Department and not to the Junior Engineers of other departments and the contention that this anomaly was only referable to the said department was not accepted. It was observed that once the anomaly was removed, the same would be applicable to Junior Engineers of all the departments and merely because the Junior Engineers belonged to different departments, the claim cannot be denied to them. On the same principles and basis, counsel contends that the petitioners in the present writ petition who belong to the Department of Development and Panchayats and, therefore, cannot be discriminated against and the benefit deserve to be conferred on them on the same analogy. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the anomaly on the basis of which the higher pay -scale was granted to the Junior Engineers with effect from 01.01.1992 vide letter dated 27.01.1992 (Anneuxre P -1) was to be given effect to from the said date qua all the departments, however, in the light of the judgments passed by this Court in M.L. Wadhwa's case (supra) which related to the Department of Public Health which was in fact a department where the anomaly did exist the benefit was granted to the Junior Engineers of the said department with effect from 01.01.1986 but the said principle cannot be made applicable to the petitioners where in the department of Development and Panchayats, there was no such feeder cadre, therefore, there can be no anomaly and the post on which the petitioners were appointed i.e. Junior Engineers is a direct cadre post. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 16737 of 2013, titled as 'Subhash Chander Singla & others v. State of Haryana & others' to contend that the situation in which the petitioners are claiming the said benefit would not be an anomaly vis -à -vis the petitioners of the said judgment, therefore, in M.L. Wadhwa's case (supra) would not be applicable to the claim of the petitioners. He further contends that the judgment in Shingara Singh Dhull's case (supra) since has only relied upon the judgment in M.L. Wadhawa's case (supra) would not be of any benefit to the petitioners. Prayer has thus been made for dismissal of the writ petition.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.;