M.R Agnihotri, J.:— Though it is not necessary to narrate the factual position of the case in detail as the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Harsaran Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1984(2). SLR 384, yet for appreciating the controversy between the parties, a brief resume of the facts would be useful.
2. Petitioner Smt. Kirpal Jeet was appointed as Technical Assistant (Evaluation) in the office of the Director, Public Instruction, Punjab, on 6th September, 1963, in the pay scale of Rs. 200-500. This appointment was made on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission. At that time, the petitioner possessed the qualification of M.A (Psychology) and Post-Graduate Training in Statistics. Since then, the petitioner has been holding this very post for the last twenty-two years, though the pay scale of the Post has been revised from Rs. 200-500 ti start with, to Rs. 700-1200, as at present.
3. The First Pay Commission recommended the. revision of pay scales of various posts in the State with effect from 1st February, 1969, and one of the recommendations of the Pay Commission was to revise the pay scale of the posts of Technical Assistant (Evaluation) the post held by the petitioner, Editor Punjabi/Hindi and Film Librarian and to equate them with the pay scale of the post of Lecturer (Junior. Scale) that is, Rs. 300-600. As a result of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, the pay scales of the posts of Technical Assistant and Editor were further revised from Rs. 300-600 to Rs. 750-1300 and Rs. 700-1200, respectively, with effect from 1st January, 1978. However, on the acceptance of the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, the pay scale of the Lecturer (Junior Scale) was revised to Rs. 700-1600.
4. Being an isolated post, no provision for the grant of Selection Grade was made either for the post of Technical Assistant or for the post of Editor, even though against this disparity, the petitioner represented to the respondents for the redress of her grievance. While enacting the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scales of Pay) Rules, 1979 which came into force with effect from 1st January, 1978, it was clearly provided as under:—
“2.(3) In the case of posts of Department of Education (College Cadre) whose scales of pay were revised with effect from the first day of January, 1978, on the U.G.C pattern, the existing scale of pay shall not undergo any change under these rules, and in their case the Additional Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto and including the instalment sanctioned with effect from the first day of January, 1978, shall be treated as Dearness Pay for all purposes.”
5. However, in the meantime, one Harsaran Singh, who was holding the isolated post of Editor in Punjabi in the office of the Director, Public Instruction, Punjab, and had a similar grievance, approached this Court by way of writ petition, praying for grant of revised scale. of Rs. 700-1600, to claim parity with the pay scale given to the Lecturer (Junior Scale). This petition was opposed by the State Government on the ground that the duties assigned to the Lecturer (Junior Scale) were of teaching nature whereas those of Editor Punjabi/Hindi were of ministerial nature. However, the writ petition was accepted by M.M Punchhi, J. on 23rd February, 1984, vide judgment in Harsaran Singh's case (supra), wherein it was held as under:—
“It is conceded before me that on the above analysis, if the petitioner got his revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from January 1, 1973, then by January 1, 1978, he could “hardly have gone uptill the scale of Rs. 1300 where from the new pay scale specifically meant for him has been put as Rs. 700-1300. Now at this point of time, the equatedness of the post of the Editor with Lecturers has gone. The post of the Editor has thus to stand in isolation. Therefore, with effect from January 1, 1978, onwards, the petitioner's pay scale is Rs. 700-1300. On this factual basis, the second point raised by the learned counsel for the arbitrary change to lesser pay scale does not arise in the circumstances and need not even academically be touched. Thus, hold that no fault can be found in the revision of the pay scales of the post of Editor under the 1979 Rules to be Rs. 700-1300.”
6. The petitioner in the present writ petition, Smt. Kirpal Jeet, has place reliance on the aforesaid judgment of this Court and has prayed for exactly identical relief, that is, the grant of pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from the date the same was allowed to the Lecturers (Junior Scale). It has also been prayed that provision for Selection Grade should also be made in the pay scale as has been done in the case of Editor Punjabi/Hindi in compliance with the above referred to judgment in Harsaran Singh's case.
7. Mr. J.S Chawla, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently contended that once the pay scale of the post of Technical Assistant was equated with that of the Lecturer (Junior Scale) by the Punjab Government as far back as in 1969, there was hardly any justification for not granting the benefit of the pay revision to the petitioner. He has also referred to the judgment in K.K Mehta v. The State of Punjab, 1983 (3) SLR 732, to contend that once the State Government decides to equate two different posts, thereafter it was not open to it to deny to one of them the same pay scale which was being given to the incumbent of the other post, merely on the ground that the qualifications, and duties of one post were different from those of/the other. Incidentally, K.K Mehta's case (supra) has been followed by M.M Punchhi, J. in Harsaran Singh's, case (supra).
8. On the other hand, Mr. K.P Bhandari, learned Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has referred in detail to the written statement filed by the respondents to justify the non-grant of the same pay scale to the petitioner as was given to the Lecturer (Junior Scale). First para of the Preliminary Objections' from the written statement is reproduced below:—
“The duties and responsibilities of these posts are altogether different and are in no way identical to teaching posts in schools and colleges. The incumbents of these posts have neither any direct dealing with teachers nor with students in schools and colleges. As such the pay structure recommended by the University Grants Commission or for that matter by any other Education Commission for Teaching Personnel in Colleges/Universities is not applicable to the post, held by the petitioner and by any other official in the office of the Director of Public Instruction (S), Punjab. The acquiring of identical academic qualification by any employee does not automatically entitle any employee for the award of grade of any employee working in another service. The petitioner is borne on the Ministerial cadre of the office of the Directorate of Public Instruction, Punjab, whereas the pay scale demanded by the petitioner is for Punjab Educational Service Class II (College Cadre).”
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining their pleadings and the material on record, I am of the considered view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed as the same is fully covered by the judgment in Harsaran Singh's case (supra). At the cost of repetition, it is held that once the State Government decided to equate the pay scale of a certain post with that of another post, it is not open to it to discriminate between the incumbents of the two posts for the grant of pay scale at the time of subsequent revision of pay scales. Such an action would be wholly violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it would be denying the equality of opportunity in the matter of employment. Incidentally, in the present case the petitioner is in a much better position. She possesses better qualifications than those possessed by the Lecturers (Junior Scale), who have been placed in the higher pay scale. She has also been entrusted, throughout her career, with duties of purely educational nature involving the imparting of instructions at various levels. The mere fact that she has to work in the office of the Director, Public Instruction, Punjab, instead of the educational institutions, is no ground to deny the same pay scale to her which she would have got had she been required to work in the educational institutions.
10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent State of Punjab to release to the petitioner the same pay scale, that is, Rs. 700-1600, which was given to the Lecturers (Junior Scale), with effect from the date the same was released to those Lecturers, along with the consequential provision for the grant of Selection Grade. The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs, of this petition which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.
11. Orders accordingly.