Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) Rule 18-A of the High Court Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 prescribes for Junior Assistants the following:- "Vacancies in the cadre of Junior Assistants shall be filled up by placement to the extent of 100% out of the Clerks who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of 5 years at the time of placement on the basis of seniority-cum-merit."
(2.) The note to Rule 18-A reads:- "Note:- The post of clerks shall be bifurcated into posts of Clerks & Junior Assistants in the ratio of 50:50 and the posts of Junior Assistants are to be filled up as per conditions laid down in Notification No.7/1/97-FPI/8978 dated 4.9.2000 of the Punjab Govt."
(3.) The rules have been inserted by Notification No.197 dated 23.8.2012. The petitioners are Junior Assistants working on the establishment of this Court who have presented this petition seeking directions to the respondents to grant them additional pay of 20% as envisaged in letter dated February 27, 2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice, New Delhi. The decision of the Government of India is addressed to the Registrar General of this Court for necessary information and compliance. These instructions have been issued by the Government of India pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 15833 of 2009 (O&M), Hari Mohan Dixit and others v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others and the order dated January 13, 2012 passed in COCP No.1619 of 2011, titled Sanjeev Verma and others v. Smt. Neela Gangadharan , Secretary (Justice) and conveys the approval of the competent authority paving way for grant of additional pay @20% of pay drawn (i.e. pay in the Pay Band+Grade Pay) of the employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh (other than Clerical cadre) w.e.f. January, 01 2006. The post of Junior Assistant falls at Sr. No.14 of the letter in the Pay Band of Rs. 5910-20200 with Grade Pay Rs. 2800/-. The letter has been issued in concurrence with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) vide their UO dated February 27, 2012. Since these instructions have been issued consequent upon the detailed order and directions issued in COCP No.1619 of 2011 dated September 21, 2012 in Sanjeev Verma's case, it would be appropriate to reproduce para.8 of the interim order which has material bearing on adjudication of this case:- "[8]. Similarly, another set of employees comprising promotee Clerks are rightly ventilating that non-grant of 20% additional pay to them on the intermediary promotional post of Clerks has caused disparity in pay. The said additional pay was admissible to promotee clerks as Restorers etc. and shall be re-admissible on the next promotional post of Junior/Senior Assistants also. The Three Judges' Committee though recommended a uniform pay scale for Clerks irrespective of their source of recruitment but the single pay scale appears to have stagnated the promoted clerks in terms of actual emoluments as with 15 years' or more service in the feeder cadre before their promotion, their pay was already fixed at par with what they got on promotion as clerks. There is no legal compulsion of parity in 'pay/emoluments' between 'promotee' and 'directly recruited' Clerks as a promotee, irrespective of his seniority, can draw higher pay/emoluments based upon his length of service. It, thus, appears justified and desirable to consider the claim for 20% additional pay to the promotee clerks.";