STATE OF PUNJAB v. PARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 887

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR, ARUN KUMAR

Judgment text

STATE OF PUNJAB v. PARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS. OCTOBER 16, 2003 [BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ. ] Service Law : Parity in pay scales-Art-cum-Lattering Expert, Production Artist etc. -Claimingpay scales equivalent to Assistants in A and B class Offices Both the categories were placed in the same scale pursuant to Third Punjab Pay Commission Report-Later, Government sanctioning higher pay scale to Assistants in 'A ' and 'B' Class Offices, but not to Art-cum-Lattering Experts etc.

-Petition by tatters-High Court, relying on its earlier decision*, granting parity-Appeal by State-Held, since the decision on ·• which High Court relied on has been reversed, order of High Court set aside-Matter remanded to High Court-It would be desirable and/air in equity that other aspects of the matter may be considered and examined by the High Court, namely recommendations of the Third Punjab Pay Commission for same pay scale for the Assistants and the subsequent notifications issued by the Government revising the pay scales. *Haryana Staie Biologists Associations v. State ofHaryana andAnr. , (1994) 2 PLR 389, stands overruled. State ofUP. & Ors. v. UP. Sales Tax Officers Grade-II Association, [2003) 6 sec 250, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2092 of 1997. . From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 2. 96 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C. W. P. No. 10631 of 1995. WITH C. A. No. 2093 of 1997. Ajay Bansal, Addi. Adv. General, Punjab, S. K.

Das for R. S. Suri, for the Appellant. Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered : The State ofPunjab has preferred these appeals against the Judgments and orders ofthe Punjab & Haryana High Court by whi y the State Government. It is also submitted that if the State had not taken incorrect stand before the High Court that the Third 1 Pay Commission had recommended different pay-scale for the Assistants, the High Court might have examined the matter taking into account other material and questions as well. Since we have noted that the judgments of the High Court impugned in these appeals are mainly based on the decision in the case of Haryana State Biologists Association (supra) which has been reversed later by this Court, the impugned Judgment has to be set aside.

But it would be desirable and fair in equity that other aspects of the matter may be considered and examined by the High Court, namely, the recommendations as made by the Third Punjab Pay Commission, which of course recommended same pay-scale for the Assistants and the subsequent notifications issued in June 1990 and September 1991 referred to above or any other further notification implementing or revising the pay-scales. It shall also examine the question as to why it was not possible for the State to accede the request made by the respondents for the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 while it had provided , the said scale for the Assistants against the specific recommendations of the Pay Commission. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the orders passed by the High Court are set aside. But we remand the matter to the High Court to consider it afresh in the light of the observations made above.

It will be open for the parties to place all relevant material on record, including the recommendations of the Pay Commission and the relevant notifications issued by the State Government. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. R. P. Appeals allowed.