Nachhattar Singh And Others (Petitioners) v. The State Of Punjab And Others (S).

M.R Sharma, J.:— The petitioners were employed as Tube well Operators in the Punjab Irrigation Department. They were drawing the salary in the grade of Rs. 45-1-65. The Tube well Operators serving in the Public Health Department of the State were given a pay raise inasmuch as they were allowed to draw the salary in the grade of Rs. 110-180 with effect from August 11, 1971. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that subsequently a labor dispute was raised and their pay scales were raised with effect from 1st February, 1968. The grievance made in this petition is that the petitioners are doing the same type of work as that of Tube well Operators in the Public Health Department and that they should also be given the same benefit by raising their pay scale with effect from February 1, 1968. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court reported as Khirod Chandra Das v. State of Orissa, 1977 (2) SLR 403, which squarely supports the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, There under, it was laid down as under:—

“There can be no dispute with the proposition. As we have already indicated in the counter affidavit there is no dispute that the nature of work of amins in the Delta Irrigation Scheme and elsewhere is similar. Undoubtedly, the other conditions of service are similar. The fact that Government have accepted in 1973 the claim of the amins in the Delta Irrigation Organization and equated their pay scales with that of the amins in other departments supports the petitioner's contention that amins under the Delta Irrigation Organization and elsewhere in Government service are of the same status. The mistake in not equating the pay scales with effect from 1-1-1965 is that of Government. The decision on the representation was taken belatedly. Petitioner and other amins in his establishment had represented to, the authorities though earlier and even the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Officer was more than a year before the order was passed. In the circumstances, we see no justification-in Government relying upon Rule 52 of the Orissa General Financial Rules, Volume-1. The spirit of that Rule does not apply to the present case where a mistake had been, committed in omitting a class of employees from giving them their legitimate due. Undoubtedly, when amins in the Delta Irrigation Scheme and amins in other establishments of Government render equal work and other conditions of service are similar if disparity is maintained in pay scale, it would; be discriminatory treatment. To accept this stand of Government would ultimately amount to premium on negligence and Government would have a benefit “for their own mistake at the cost of the petitioner and similarly situated employees for no fault of theirs.”

2. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the above case.

3. Mr. A.S Sandhu, learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that the petitioners had been working on ad-hoc basis and their grades would be revised from the date their service had been regularized: As far as the quantum of work put in by a regular employee or ad-hoc employee is concerned, admittedly there is no difference.

4. I see no reason why the persons employed by the State Government doing the same type and quantity of work should be differently treated. The contention raised by Mr. Sandhu is turned down.

5. For the reasons afore-mentioned, I allow this petition and direct the respondent to revise the pay scale of the petitioners with effect from tin date the pay scale of the Tube well Operators serving in the Public Heal h Department was revised, There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Petition allowed.