Dismissed

P.S.E.B. and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Mar 2011LPA/690/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent Appeal, the Punjab State Electricity Board challenged a Single Judge's order granting pay scale parity to promoted telephone mechanics against direct recruits. The Single Judge held that source of recruitment alone was invalid for classification. The Division Bench precedent was final and binding, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal failed and was dismissed. The Single Judge's order upholding the respondents' rights to equal pay scales was upheld.

P.S.E.B. and Anr. Vs Mohinder Singh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

L.P.A. No. 690 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision : March 28, 2011

¶3

Punjab State Electricity Board and another

¶4

....Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mohinder Singh and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

¶9

Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

M.M.KUMAR, J.

¶13

The only issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether the source of recruitment alone could constitute a valid ground of classification for the purposes of grant of higher scale of pay.

¶14

It has not been disputed before us that the writ petitionerrespondents have been working on the post of Telephone Mechanic and were promoted as such in the higher scale of pay from the post of Telephone Attendants. Sh. Gurmit Singh was appointed as Telephone Mechanics by direct recruitment and has been given higher scale of pay.

¶15

LPA No. 690 of 2010(O&M) -2-

¶16

However, without regard to educational qualification or presence of any other special circumstance constituting lawful basis for granting higher pay scale to the direct recruite, the pay scale of the writ petitionerrespondents has been kept lower than those appointed by way of direct recruitment. On first principle, the aforesaid differential treatment given to the promoted employees would be unsustainable because if an incumbent enters into one cadre i.e. Telephone Mechanic irrespective of his source, he looses the birth mark. Such an incumbent deserves to be accorded equal treatment alongwith all other members of service constituting the cadre of Telephone Mechanic. It is understandable if educational qualification has been made basis for granting of higher scale of pay to those who have been recruited by the mode of direct recruitment. However, this is not the situation prevailing in the present case.

¶17

It is undisputed that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in a bunch of cases including C.W.P. No. 13466 of 1999 decided on 24.10.2008 (P-6). In that judgment, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in T.R.Bansal v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2005(2) SLR 410 . Against that order, even LPA No. 73 of 2009 preferred by the appellants stands dismissed. It is appropriate to notice that it was also a case of Telephone Mechanic working in the Electricity Board-appellant. We are of the view that the discriminatory treatment given to the promoted Telephone Mechanic in the matter of pay scale

¶18

LPA No. 690 of 2010(O&M) -3-

¶19

would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the appeal does not merit admission. The mere fact that Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 13466 of 1999 (supra) would not be a valid ground for admission of the appeal because within these jurisdiction the Division Bench judgment is final and binding on us. We have been informed that there is no interim order granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition.

¶20

As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶21

( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE

¶22

( T.P.S.MANN ) March 28, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I

P.S.E.B. and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.E.B. and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and 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

Jarnail Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Prtc Vs Rajinder Singh Dhaliwal

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Ravi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harbans Lal Bagga Vs State of Punjab and Ors.