AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant the petitioners the scale of Rs. 950 -1500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and the consequential benefits of arrears of salary, interest etc. Prayer has also been made for maintaining a common seniority list of Laboratory Attendants irrespective of the fact as to whether they are Matriculate or non -Matric. Claim for the grant of selection grade w.e.f. 01.02.1982 has also been made and the order dated 05.07.1988 (Annexure P -10), vide which different pay scales were granted to Matriculate and non -Matric Laboratory Attendants, has been assailed.
(2.) PETITIONERS , who are all non -Matriculates, have approached this Court claiming the benefits, as have been referred to above. It is their contention that prior to 31.03.1987, all the Laboratory Attendants irrespective of the fact whether they were Matric or non -Matric constituted one and the same cadre and a single joint seniority list of the Laboratory Attendants was maintained. Vide Circular dated 27.04.1987, two separate tentative seniority lists one for the Matriculate Laboratory Attendants and other for the non -Matric Laboratory Attendants as on 31.03.1987 was issued. Petitioners were also granted lesser pay scale than the Matriculate Laboratory Attendants, which resulted in the petitioners approaching this Court assailing the action of the respondents. The selection grade, as was claimed by them w.e.f. 01.02.1982, was also not granted to them and, therefore, this claim was also made in the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the Statutory Rules, the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Laboratory Attendant. They cannot be now merely on the basis of some candidates having been appointed with Matriculation qualification, discriminated and bifurcation of cadre on that basis treating the Matriculates as Class -III employees whereas the non -Matric as Class -IV employees is unsustainable. Since they are appointed under the same Statutory Rules, respondents are required to maintain a common seniority list with common pay scale and on the ground of higher academic qualification, the claim of higher pay scale granted to the Matriculates is not sustainable. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 3901 of 1988 titled as Lachhman Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein similar prayer, as made by the petitioners with regard to the common seniority list and grant of same pay scales in the Department of Higher Education, has been accepted. He, on this basis, contends that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Counsel for the respondents has produced an order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, according to which, the selection grade to the petitioners has been granted w.e.f. 01.02.1982 and on this basis, he states that the prayer qua this relief has been rendered infructuous.
(3.) AS regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioners with regard to the different pay scales having been granted to the petitioners, who are non -Matric and Matriculate Laboratory Attendants, he submits that on the basis of the qualifications, the said bifurcation has been done. He further states that as per the decision of the Government of Haryana, the Matriculate Laboratory Attendants have been classified as Class -III employees whereas the Laboratory Attendants, who are non -Matric, continued to be Class -IV employees. He contends that the bifurcation of the cadre on the basis of the qualification is fully justified and similarly, the grant of higher pay scale on the basis of qualification is in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. J.P.Chaurasia and others, 1989 (1) SCC 121. He, on this basis, contends that the writ petition is without merit. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case. The judgment, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioners i.e. Lachhman Singh (supra) was a case where all the Laboratory Attendants were treated to be as Class -IV employees. There was no distinction in the class and, therefore, was a common cadre. If that be so, the judgment was in consonance with the settled principle. The Court, thereafter, had proceeded to pass the order on the assertion that they all belong to one Class i.e. Class -IV and being a single common cadre, there was to be no discrimination in regard to the pay scale on the basis of qualification especially when the nature of work was the same.;