Dismissed

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar Mehta & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Oct 2009LPA/327/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a judgment fixing higher pay scales for promotees compared to direct recruits. Holding that promotees must be clubbed with direct recruits in the same cadre, the court found no justification for discriminatory treatment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal under Letters Patent dismissed; matter decided on merit; no order on condonation of delay.

Punjab State Electricity Board Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

LPA No.327 of 2009 (O&M) #1#

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

LPA No.327 of 2009 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Order: 5.10.2009

¶5

Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary Finance (PSEB)

¶6

...Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ashwani Kumar Mehta and others

¶9

....Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Talwinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶13

Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

M.M. KUMAR,J

¶17

The instant appeal filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 14.11.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.16142 of 1999. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on his earlier decision dated 24.10.2008 rendered in CWP No.1925 of 2004 titled as Didar Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another . Learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on another judgment rendered in CWP No.13466 of 1999 titled as Jit Singh and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another. The judgment in Didar

¶18

LPA No.327 of 2009 (O&M) #2#

¶19

Singh's case (supra) was challenged by the appellant Electricity Board before the Letters Patent Bench in LPA No.72 of 2009. The contention raised before LPA Bench as also before us has been that a direct recruit was given higher pay scale by extending the benefits under the Time Bound Benefit Promotional Scheme (for brevity “the scheme”) whereas respondents No.1 & 2, who were given promotions, were not entitled to grant of those benefit under the scheme. Letter Patent Bench considered the aforesaid argument and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant Electricity Board namely LPA No.72 of 2009 holding that on the basis of source of recruitment, there could not be any discrimination in the matter of fixing pay.

¶20

In the present case, it has come on record that respondent No.1 Ashwani Kumar Mehta was promoted as Sub Station Attendant on 16.9.1977 whereas respondent No.2 Avtar Singh was given promotion as such on 3.5.1977. They were given pay scales of Rs.1410-2480/- on completion of nine years w.e.f 13.7.1987 whereas the direct recruit has been given the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/- with effect from the same date. Respondents No.1 & 2 have also stagnated on the post of Sub Station Attendant for nine years like the direct recruit. If the direct recruit-Karnail Singh was entitled to pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/- then we see no reason why the same pay scale would not be admissible to respondents Ashwani Kumar Mehta and Avtar Singh. We find no justification for a discriminatory treatment of the promotees merely because they were promoted to the post of Sub Station Attendant from a lower post. It is well settled that the birth marks would not keep governing the issue of pay scale after promotee and the direct recruit are clubbed in one cadre i.e Sub Station

¶21

#3#

¶22

LPA No.327 of 2009 (O&M)

¶23

Attendant. We find no ground to interfere in the view taken by the learned Single Judge especially when it was not disputed before the learned Single Judge that the matter is covered by the judgment rendered in Didar Singh's

¶24

case (supra) and appeal against the aforesaid view has been already dismissed.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶26

On account of the fact that we have decided the matter on merit, we do not deem it necessary to pass any order on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

¶27

( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE

¶28

October 05, 2009 manoj

¶29

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar Mehta & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar Mehta & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nimish International Spices Vs State of Punjab etc.

M/S Malwa Rcie and General Mills and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

S K Vats and Ors. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

M/S United Chain Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Tehal Singh Vs Financial Comm. (Revenue) Punjab & Ors.

M/S Surya Automobiles, G.T.Road, Jalandh Vs State of Punjab and Another