Devi Dutt Sharma and Others vs Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present writ petition has been preferred by 19 work mistries employed in the Haryana Warehousing Corporation. They have projected a grievance that for discharge of similar duties, the work mistries employed by the Govt. of Haryana in its Public Works Department B&R (Public Health) have been designated as Class-III Employees and placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1400, whereas the respondent-Corporation is treating the petitioners as Class-IV Employees and granting pay-scale of Rs. 800-1150.

The petitioners had earlier approached this Court and had prayed that for equal work, equal pay should accrue to them. This Court directed the respondent-Corporation to decide the representation of the petitioners. It was represented by the petitioners that the respondent Corporation, vide Annexure P-1, had passed a resolution that the employees of Haryana Warehousing Corporation shall be entitled to the same scale of pay, which was being paid to the employees of Govt. of Haryana. This plea was negated by the Corporation by saying that the petitioners were not performing Supervisory duties and were under the overall control of the Junior Engineers, whereas the work mistries in PWD B&R have been designated as Work Supervisors and they were performing duties which were supervisory in nature. It was further stated that due to this distinction, work mistries employed in the Corporation have been treated as Class IV Employees.

Counsel for the petitioners have relied upon various communications (Annexures P/5 A and P/5 B) of the respondent-Corporation to say that this stand of the Corporation is not justifiable on the facts of the case, as the petitioners were performing the supervisory duties. Learned Counsel have further submitted that faced with the communications (Annexures P/5 A and P/5 B), the Standing Committee on Public Enterprises, in its meeting held on 6th September, 2010 at 10.30 a.m., found merit in the contention of the petitioners and decided to place them in Class-III service and grant them the same scale of pay as was granted to the employees of the State Government. However, it is stated that this decision has not been made applicable retrospectively and therefore, the petitioners have been denied their rightful due. Counsel for the petitioners have further stated that once the respondents have found merit in the contention of the petitioners that they were entitled to be placed at par with the work mistries/work supervisors working in the Department of the State Govt., then they should have also been granted the same scale of pay and Class-III status from the same date.

Before this Court could venture into this argument, counsel for the parties have stated that since the present writ petition was filed in the year 1996, therefore, the pleadings are not in consonance with the decision taken on 6th September, 2010. Counsel for the petitioners have prayed that they be granted liberty to assail the decision dated 6th September, 2010 in an appropriate forum to justify their claim that they are entitled to be given same pay-scale retrospectively with status of Class-III Employees.

In view of the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners, the present petition stands disposed of, with liberty aforesaid.