Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.@mdashChallenge herein is to the judgment dated 28.10.2010 Annexure A-1, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 5386 of 2008, allowing thereby the petition partly, with a direction to the appellant-Board to release the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 to the respondent-writ petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1986, with all consequential benefits.
2. The complaint is that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that consequent upon the judgment passed by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1578/1990, the appellant-Board placed the writ petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1080 w.e.f. 1.4.1981. This scale was further revised to Rs. 1500-2640 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on Punjab State Electricity Board pay pattern. Since the writ petitioner allegedly obtained the benefit of pay-scale on the basis of Punjab State Electricity Board pattern consequent upon the order passed by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, therefore, now he is not entitled to the benefits under the pay pattern of the appellant-Board. The findings that there is no proof that the appellant-Board is following the pattern of Punjab State Electricity Board are stated to be not correct in view of the resolution Annexure A-2 annexed to this appeal. The writ petitioner having availed the benefit of Punjab State Electricity Board pay pattern cannot claim the grant of pay scale on some different pattern. The pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 has been granted to bull-dozer operators, dumper operators, shovel operators etc. keeping in view that they handle heavy earth moving machines and hence, not comparable with the category of the writ-petitioner, i.e. Diesel Engine Operator. The above categories allegedly form separate cadre and are governed by separate recruitment and promotion regulations and as such there is nothing common with the Diesel Engine Driver, the category of the writ petitioner.
3. On hearing learned counsel on both sides and also going through the record, it is seen that in the cadre of Diesel Engine Driver, there exists only one post, which previously was manned by the Writ Petitioner and after his retirement on superannuation on and w.e.f. 31.12.2007, was to be treated as a dying cadre. Consequent upon the order passed by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1578/1990 (Annexure RA-1 to the reply filed in the writ petition), the writ petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1080 w.e.f. 1.4.1981. Subsequently, he was granted the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2640 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Again, his pay was fixed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 vide order dated 7.10.1997, Annexure RA-IV to the supplementary affidavit filed in the writ petition. The pay of the petitioner in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200, however, was withdrawn vide order dated 5.12.1997, Annexure RA-V to the supplementary affidavit filed in the writ petition. The writ petitioner on being promoted as Foreman (Light Machinery) stands retired on superannuation from the service of the appellant-Board on and w.e.f. 31st December, 2007 (AN).
4. Admittedly, the other operators and drivers in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1080, subsequently revised to Rs. 1500-2640, like in the case of the writ petitioner, were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. However, the writ petitioner was denied his placement in this pay-scale. The only explanation is that the Punjab State Electricity Board has not placed the Diesel Engine Drivers in the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
5. True it is that as per Annexure A-2, now placed on record, the appellant-Board vide resolution dated 20.12.1979, has resolved to follow the Punjab State Electricity Board pay-scales, including selection grades etc., however, there is nothing on record, suggesting that the other categories of operators/drivers, such as bulldozer operators, dumper operators, shovel operators etc., who were also in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 and subsequently placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2640, were given the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 or not. Nothing has come on record that these categories are not on the establishment of Punjab State Electricity Board and as such, were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
6. Above all, the pay-pattern of Punjab State Electricity Board is not a straight jacket formula to be followed in the appellant-Board to the detrimental of a particular category, because the category of bulldozer operator, dumper operator, shovel operator, who were also in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1080 and subsequently placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2640, were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986, whereas the writ petitioner, who was also in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1080 and subsequently placed in the revised scale of Rs. 1500-2640, has been denied the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986, on the sole ground that the scale of Rs. 570-1080 was granted to him consequent upon the judgment Annexure RA-1 on Punjab pattern and now the writ petitioner cannot claim the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200.
7. We are afraid that such a plea can be raised because in the judgment Annexure RA-1 there is nothing that the writ petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of revised pay-scale or to claim the revised pay-scale, even if discriminated against the persons, who were also placed in the same pay-scale and later on granted higher pay-scale on further revision. Surprisingly enough, the writ petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200, which was later on withdrawn at the pretext of having been placed in this pay-scale wrongly. A reference in this behalf can be made to the supplementary affidavit filed in the writ petition. No explanation, however, is set-forth in the supplementary affidavit as to how the order of fixation of pay of the writ-petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 was wrong. The only explanation that scale of Rs. 570-1080 was given to him on Punjab Pattern consequent upon judgment Annexure RA-1 to the reply is without any substance as the perusal of judgment Annexure RA-1 reveals that there is no mention therein to place the writ petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 on the pattern of Punjab State Electricity Board. Rather, the petitioner was otherwise held entitled for placement in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1080, which in the opinion of the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, was erroneously withheld.
8. It is apt to reproduce the order passed in the appeal on 3.8.2011, which reads as follows:
"Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to get instruction as to what was the scale available in the State Government prior to the abolition of the diesel engine driver post. In the process, the learned counsel may refer to the supplementary affidavit, filed by the writ petitioner."
9. The appellant-Board has failed to place on record the information qua the pay-scale of the post of Diesel Engine Driver in the State Government prior to the abolition of such post, because Annexure PL/1 to the application being C.M.P. No. 1320/2011, only tells us that no such post of Diesel Engine Driver exists in the H.P. Public Works Department w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Meaning thereby that such post though was existing prior to 1.1.1986, however, what was the scale thereof, nothing is brought on record, despite the order ibid passed in this appeal. Therefore, on this score also an adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellant-Board.
10. In this view of the matter, learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment on proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and also the documents available on record in its right perspective. The impugned judgment, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting interference in the present appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
