High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging low salary scales, dismissing factual averments that petitioners performed Fitter duties as respondents denied promotions and raised qualification discrepancies.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP Nos.15077, 14449 & 6412 of 1998 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) C.W.P.No.15077 of 1998 Ram Kumar ....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... (2) C.W.P.No.14449 of 1998 Baldev Raj ....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents ... (3) C. W. P. No. 6412 of 1998 Krishan Nath ....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Date of Decision: 25 – 8 - 2010
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
*******
Present: Mr.Satish Goel, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.15077 and 14449 of 1998. None for the petitioner in CWP No.6412 of 1998 Mr.Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana for the respondent- State of Haryana. None for the private respondents.
CWP Nos.15077, 14449 & 6412 of 1998 [2]
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, three writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos.15077 of 1998, 14449 of 1998 and 6412 of 1998 shall be decided together.
For facility of reference, facts are gathered from Civil Writ Petition No.15077 of 1998, titled `Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and others'. It is stated in the petition that petitioner was appointed as a Workcharged Fitter Coolie on 13.2.1985 at the initial pay of Rs.300/- p.m. plus usual allowances in the pay scale of Rs.300-480/-. The petitioner was brought on the regular cadre of Fitter Collie on 4.1.1991. According to the respondent-State, since then he is working as a Fitter Coolie, whereas the petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-Department transferred Krishan Nath (petitioner in CWP No.6412 of 1998) from Dadupur Jattan to Buria, Ram Kumar (petitioner in CWP No.15077 of 1998) from Tajewala to Tajewala/Bhudkalan and Baldev Raj (petitioner in CWP No.14449 of 1998) from Chhachhrauli to Dharam Kot and in the remarks column of transfer orders, it has been stated that the senior most Fitter Coolie who are at the verge of promotion may be entrusted the duties of Fitter. Case of the petitioners is that in view of office order dated 4.1.1991, Annexure P3, they were entrusted with the duties of Fitter and are continuing as such since then.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the petitioners are performing the duties on a higher post, payment of salary to them in lower scale is not justifiable. Counsel has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Tulsi Das and others v. Govt. of A.P and others , 2003(1) RSJ 699 to say that if a person is performing duties on a higher post, he is to be
CWP Nos.15077, 14449 & 6412 of 1998 [3]
paid salary of the post on which he is discharging the duties. To fortify his submission, learned counsel further relied upon Jagar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others , 2003(1) RSJ 795 and Hans Raj Aggarwal v. State of Haryana , 2000(4) SCT 431.
This Court need not dwell on the proposition advanced by counsel for the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the State has denied that the petitioners have been employed as a Fitter. A categoric assertion in this regard has been made in the written statement. It is stated that petitioners are working as a Fitter Coolie and they have never been allowed to perform the duties of a Fitter. Paragraph 5 of the written statement reads as under:-
It is further stated that petitioners are neither qualified nor having experience and educational qualification necessary for promoting them as a Fitter. It is further submitted by the State counsel that petitioners are not entitled to be promoted as a Fitter, as they are lower in the seniority list and a number of senior persons are working as a Fitter Coolie. In paragraph 9 of the written statement, it has been stated as under:-
In this case the petitioner neither worked as Fitter nor he is matriculate neither he possess ITI certificate. As he does not
CWP Nos.15077, 14449 & 6412 of 1998 [4]
fulfill the minimum prescribed qualification, hence is not entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040.”
This Court cannot examine the disputed questions of facts. The
stand of the petitioners that they are in the cadre and are performing the duties of a Fitter, cannot be accepted, as the respondents have specifically denied this averment. Therefore, this Court cannot come to the rescue of
the petitioners.
Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed, with no order as to
costs.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 25, 2010. JUDGE
RC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners performing duties of Fitter are entitled to higher salary scale despite being designated as Fitter Coolie.
Whether court can examine disputed question of facts regarding petitioner qualifications and actual duties assigned.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Tulsi Das and others v. Govt. of A.P and othersReferred¶13
P. Tulsi Das and others v. Govt. of A.P and others, 2003(1) RSJ 699
Jagar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶15
Jagar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(1) RSJ 795
Hans Raj Aggarwal v. State of HaryanaReferred¶15
Hans Raj Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2000(4) SCT 431
Ram Kumar
Baldev Raj
Krishan Nath
State of Haryana
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
