Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER joined as a Constable in the Police Department, State of Haryana on 11.1.1989. He is matriculate and also possesses the qualification of ITI (Diploma in Draftsman). Vide order dated 8.2.1994 (Annexure P -2) it was decided to appoint two Draftsman in the Department of Police. Necessary qualification for the post was laid down as under: Draftsman Matriculation with either a Diploma/Certificate in draftsmanship from an Industrial Training Institute or Certificate in Industrial Drawing from ITI.
(2.) AS the petitioner has necessary qualification he was posted against the post of Draftsman on 6.7.1994. He continued to work as such till he was relieved from duty on 27.12.2006. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner continued to perform the duties of a Draftsman, with some intervals in between, for the period as stated above. He has filed this writ petition with a prayer that he be paid revised pay scale for the post of Draftsman i.e. Rs. 4000 -6000, for the period, he continued to perform duties of a Draftsman. After hearing counsel for the parties we feel that the claim of the petitioner is justified. It is apparent from the record and not disputed before us that the petitioner was made to discharge duties of a Draftsman on 6.7.1994. At one time it was proposed to designate him as a Draftsman. However, that proposal was rejected by observing thus: 2. As there is no extra pay for Draftsman Constables, so GRP can still conveniently and legally utilize the services of Constable Raj Kumar No. 1007/GRP as Draftsman. There is no need to especially designate him as such. Take action accordingly.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner for his re -designation as Draftsman was not considered on the ground that the pay scale of a Constable and that of a Draftsman was the same as on 26.7.1999. In the meantime the State of Haryana issued instructions revising the pay scales of those employees, who were holding technical posts. Except in the police department, those pay scales were made applicable with regard to the employees working in other Departments of State of Haryana. The matter came to this Court in CWP No. 15535/1999 and a Division Bench of this Court dealing with the similar controversy observed as under on 12.9.2002: We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that the plea raised by the petitioners being meritorious deserves to succeed. In fact from a perusal of the order Annexure P -2, we find absolutely no reason to create any distinction or differentiation between the posts in various other departments vis -a -vis the posts in the police department. We find that the instructions Annexure P -2 are of universal application. No distinction whatsoever on the basis of the service in a particular department could be made by the State Government. The aforesaid general order was applicable as well to the police department as to any other department of the State Government.;