Mewa Singh and Others vs The State of Punjab and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—Petitioner No. 1 had applied for the post of English Stenography Instructor whereas Petitioner No. 2 applied for appointment to the post of Punjabi Stenography Instructor. Both were given appointment on 01.09.1998. Petitioner No. 1 is Graduate and has passed diploma of stenography in English and had six years experience at the time of his appointment. Petitioner No. 2 is also Graduate and possesses diploma of stenography in Punjabi and had five years experience when appointed.

The Petitioners were given pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 at the time of their appointment. On the basis of recommendation made by Third Pay Commission, the pay scale of the Petitioner was revised to Rs. 1500-2640. As per the Petitioner, the Pay Commission had not fixed any revised pay scale for the post held by the Petitioners. It is stated that certain posts of ITI Instructors in other departments were in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 prior to revision but were revised two different scales of Rs. 1800-3200 and 1640-2925. 50% of the posts were given a pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 whereas remaining 50% were given other pay scales.

Feeling aggrieved against the same, the Petitioners filed a representation, Annexures P-3 and P-6. The Petitioners would also submit that they possess higher qualification, have more experience and onerous responsibility. The Petitioners have also claimed that they have more work load as compared to stenographer working in the other department of Government of Punjab. They have also not been provided any chance of promotion.

The Petitioners have tabulated in a chart form, their educational qualification and those of the other instructor working in some ITI departments and so also the work load in the other departments. The Petitioners, accordingly, contend that they are better qualified, have more workload but still have been given less pay on the basis of revision of pay carried out after Third Pay Commission report. No action was taken on their representation. The Petitioner has, thus, filed the present writ petition.

The Respondents have filed reply raising some preliminary objections. It is stated that equation of pay and post are matters primarily concerning Government of the State and not the Courts. In this regard, reference is made to Kewal Ram Sharma and Ors. v. State of Punjab 1989 (3) SLR 507. As per the Respondents, the present writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It is stated that these are isolated posts of Stenography Instructors in the Welfare Department having no profession head to supervise their work and as such these cannot be treated at par with Instructors, ITI, who are working under the supervision and control of higher qualified professional Instructors. The Respondent, accordingly, states that these pay scales cannot be given to the Petitioners being isolated posts of Stenography Instructor.

I have heard counsel for the parties. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Petitioner had placed some additional material on record by moving miscellaneous application. Reference is made to the revision and pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996, which has been done on the basis of recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission. Apart from making reference to the revised pay scale of the Petitioners and ITI Instructors and some other Instructors Stenography in the language department, the Petitioners have placed on record the judgment passed by this Court, which is at Annexure A-1.

Mr. Bal has also drawn my attention to Annexure-F, which has subsequently been placed on record, which is a communication addressed by The Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Scheduled Castes & Backward Classes Welfare Department for declaring the posts of Stenography Instructors of ITI as equivalent to Vocational Lecturers (school).

As per the counsel, no decision has been taken on either the representation filed by the Petitioners or on the recommendation of the department as referred to above. It will be appropriate to direct the Respondents to consider the prayer of the Petitioners in the light of legal position as raised in the petition as well as the law, which may have been settled subsequently. The Petitioners would be at liberty to file supplementary representation, if they so desire. The Respondents should make an endeavour to decide the representation within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of.