Div. Bench allowed appeal against Single Judge order granting modified pay scale to non-graduate clerks. Upheld Shetty Commission recommendations that higher qualifications justify higher scales. Dismissed writ petition.
Impugned order set aside; Writ petition dismissed.
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.
LPA No.1217 of 2012 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1217 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision: 14.05.2013
State of Haryana
-----Appellant
Vs.
Jitender Kumar and others
----Respondents
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA
Present:Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana for the appellant.
Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 14.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
LPA No.1217 of 2012 (O&M)
2
4590/- to 4000-6000/- in case of graduate Clerks only and the respondents being non-graduates were not allowed the said modified revised scale. They made representations for grant of scale of 4000-6000/- which were rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed CWP No.22878 of 2010 in this Court. The said writ petition vide order dated 22.12.2010 was allowed by learned Single Judge in terms of order dated 13.8.2010 passed in CWP No.12750 of 2009 – Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal by the State of Haryana.
3
LPA No.1217 of 2012 (O&M)
“19. When the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments are applied to the facts of the present appeals, no manner of doubt is left that the classification made between the graduate Clerks and non-graduate Clerks does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In Gopi Kishan Sen's case (supra) it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that a person who has higher qualification is likely to discharge his duties better than a less qualified person. A graduate Clerk would be more efficient than a non-graduate and matriculate Clerk. Moreover, there was no limitation on Shetty Commission to make recommendations of identical pay scale for both graduate and non-graduate Clerks. However, the Shetty Commission preferred to recommend the pay scale of 5000-8100 for graduate Clerks leaving the non-graduate Clerks to keep working in the pay scale of 3120-5160.”
The claim of respondents No.1 to 14 on the basis that
LPA No.1217 of 2012 (O&M)
4
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge
May 14, 2013 (Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia) 'gs' Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether educational qualification constitutes a valid rational basis for differentiating pay scales of clerks within the same cadre.
Whether benefits granted to employees in Union Territory or this Court can be claimed by non-graduates in subordinate courts under Article 14 and 16.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab v. Sarabjit Singh and othersFollowed¶19
Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) SLR 403
State of Haryana
Jitender Kumar
Ajay Kumar Mittal
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
