Jaswinder Kaur vs The Punjab State Co-op. Bank Ltd.

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent-bank to release her the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4100/- w.e.f. 16.1.1990. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed as a Stenographer with the respondent-bank vide order dated 16.1.1990 (Annexure P-2). As per Annexure P-1, Personal Assistant and Stenographer were placed in the same pay scale but the Personal Assistants were allowed Rs. 50/- as special pay over and above the pay scales allowed to Personal Assistant and Stenographer. Vide Annexure P-5, pay scales of the employees of ex-cadre posts were revised. Stenographers were granted the pay scale of Rs. 1620-3350/- from Rs. 750-1400/-, whereas, Personal Assistants were allowed pay scale of Rs. 1850-3650/- from Rs. 750-1400/-. So far as the draftsmen are concerned, they were allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- from Rs. 570-1080/-. Thus, the stenographers had been granted lessor pay scale on revision than the Personal Assistant and Draftsman. Hence, the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was liable to be granted the same pay scales as was being granted to the Personal Assistant and Draftsman. The respondent-bank, while revising the pay scale, had wrongly granted the lower pay scale to the Stenographers.

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent, however, written statement on behalf of the respondent is on record.

As per the written statement filed by the respondent, the post of Personal Assistant was a step higher than the post of Stenographer. Senior most Stenographer could be considered for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant in the case of vacancy. So far as the post of Draftsman is concerned, the same is a technical post and the same was available in the separate construction wing of the respondent-bank. The respondent-bank, at the time of pay revision, had revised the pay scales of ex-cadre posts vide Annexure P-5. The pay scales must have been revised keeping in view the nature of duties performed by the employees. Merely because the Personal Assistants were given a higher pay scale at the time of revision of pay scales would not entitle the Stenographers to the same pay scales. Moreover, it is the case of the respondent-bank that the senior most Stenographer could be considered for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant in the case of vacancy. So far as the Draftsmen are concerned, their pay scales must have been revised in a higher scale as per the duties performed by them. Therefore, the petitioner, who was working as a stenographer, could not claim the same pay scale as had been granted to the Personal Assistant or Draftsman at the time of revision of pay scales. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.