- (1.) SEEKING quashing of order dated 28.3.1997 (Annexure P -9) whereby their representation was rejected, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking further directions to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.1200 -2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1994.
(2.) FACTS relevant for adjudication of this petition are being narrated hereunder: Having been appointed on different dates from 1975 to 1990, the petitioners had been working as Bearers (class -IV post) and were promoted as X -ray Attendants on 27.10.1994. Claiming that post of a Bearer as also that of a Packer is Class -IV post, it is averred that next promotion is to the post of X -ray Attendant/Operation Theatre (for short, OT) Attendant/Central Sterilization Supply Department (for short, CSSD) Attendant. The pay scales of class -IV posts were equal till 1.1.1986. However, pay scale of Packers was revised from Rs.750 -940 say Rs.950 - 1,400, whereas the pay scales of higher post was not revised and remained Rs.800 -1,150. Further case of the petitioners is as under: One Chhotu Ram was promoted from the post of Packer to the post of OT Attendant and pursuant to filing of CWP No.9024 of 1995, he was allowed pay scale of Rs.1,200 -2,040 w.e.f. 1.1.1994 on the analogy that pay scale of higher post cannot be equal or lower to the lower post. Taking clue from the said decision of Chhotu Ram, Packer, the petitioners made a representation on 24.3.1996 (Annexure P -3) seeking revision of their pay scales to Rs.1,200 -2,040. Non -decision on this representation by the respondents led to filing of CWP No.11964 of 1996 by the petitioners wherein directions were issued for deciding representation of the petitioners within four months. One Rajender Singh and another, who had been promoted as CSSD Attendants from the post of Packers had also filed CWP No.1117 of 1996. It was also allowed in favour of the said petitioners. 15 CSSD Attendants who were promoted to the post of Bearers on 13.12.1996 had also filed CWP No.17215 of 1996 wherein directions had been issued by the Court to consider case of the petitioners in terms of CWP No.1117 of 1996. Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Haryana in case of Chhotu Ram was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 3.3.1997. Special Leave Petition preferred by the State of Haryana in case of Rajender Singh and another also met the same fate when Special Leave Petition by the State of Haryana was dismissed on 2.4.1997 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Representation of the petitioners was rejected on 28.3.1997 on the ground that pay scale of Rs.1,200 -2,040 had not been granted to Chhotu Ram. It was explained that Chhotu Ram was promoted as OT Attendant from the post of a Packer and his initial appointment as also promotion was different from that of the initial appointment and promotion of the petitioners. Indulgence of the respondents has been sought for grant of pay scale of Rs.1,200 -2,040 w.e.f. 1.1.1994 while seeking quashing of impugned order (Annexure P -9). In a tough contest offered by the respondents, controverting the allegations of the petitioners, it was, interalia, pleaded by them that employees born on different and distinct cadres covered by separate set of rules could not be equated in matters of grant of scales of pay. Elaborating their case further, it was claimed that revision of pay scales cannot be claimed as a matter of right and further that equation of posts or equation of pay are matters requiring determination by expert bodies like the pay commission etc. Explaining their case further, it was averred by the respondents that the petitioners could not claim any parity with the case of Chhotu Ram who was appointed as Packer on 6.12.1978 and was promoted as OT Attendant on 19.3.1987. First higher standard pay scale of Rs.950 -1,400 was granted to him w.e.f. 1.1.1994. He had filed a CWP No.9042 of 1995 in this Court wherein directions had been issued to the respondents to grant higher pay scale of Rs.1,200 -2,040. Though the Government had gone against this judgment in Special Leave Petition to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay. It was explained that higher pay scale in respect of class -IV employees was dependent on Feeder post. It was explained that if the pay scale of Rs.1,200 -2,040 was made applicable to class -IV employees like the petitioners, class -III employees were to clamour for higher pay scale than those of class -IV employees and this process then would continue ceaselessly resulting in multiplicity of court cases. It was elaborated that all the petitioners from the post of Bearer had been promoted as X -ray Attendants. In short, it was explained that Feeder post for the post of X -ray Attendant is Bearer and not that of a Packer. Pay scale for the post of a Bearer was Rs.750 -940 and for that of X -ray Attendant was Rs.800 - 1,150. Revealing that pay scale of Feeder post (Bearer) is not more than promotional post i.e. x -ray Attendant, averring that the petitioners were not entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.1,200 -2,040, dismissal of the petition was sought.
(3.) HEARING has been provided to learned counsel for the parties while going through the paper book. The petitioners were appointed to the Posts of Bearers whereafter they were promoted as X -ray Attendants. Pay scale of Bearers was Rs.750 -940. From this Feeder Cadre post of Bearer, promotion was made as X -ray Attendant in the pay scale of Rs.800 -1,150. It is clear that pay scale of Feeder post i.e. Bearer was not more than the promotional post of X -ray Attendant. Merely because Feeder Cadre post of Packer was having promotional avenue in the post of OT Attendant in the pay scale of Rs.950 - 1,400 does not make out a ground for parity to the petitioners who had started their career as Bearers from which post, promotional avenue was not to the post of OT Attendant but was to the post of X -ray Attendant. Sequelly, if post of X -ray Attendant is in the pay scale of Rs.800 -1,150 whereas post of OT Attendant is in the pay scale of Rs.950 -1,400, it is no cause of heartburning to the petitioners.;