CWP no.

23455 of 2012 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH
1.CWP no. 23455 of 2012 (O&M)
Raj Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
2.CWP no. 22796 of 2013 (O&M)
Jagdeep Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision : 06.09.2014
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present :

Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Saurabh Gulia, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP no. 23455 of 2012
Mr. P.K.Goklaney, Advocate for petitioners
in CWP no. 22796 of 2013
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab

MAHESH GROVER, J.
This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP nos.
23455 of 2012 and
The grievance of the petitioners who are bus drivers in essence
is that by virtue of the rules (Annexure P-8) introduced by way of
notification dated 7.6.2000 they were to be in the pay band of 4020-6200
REKHA
2014.09.09 16:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

CWP no. 23455 of 2012 (O&M)

while the staff car drivers were lower in pay in the pay band of 3330-6200.
For the purposes of reference relevant portion of the appendix A to the
aforestated rules are extracted herebelow:Sr.No Designation of the
post

No. of posts
Permanent

Scale of pay
(in rupees)
Temporary

Total

Bus Driver

1131

1988

4020-1204280-1404400-1505000-1605800-2003119 6200

11

3330-1105660-1204260-1404400-1505000-1605800-20019 6200

Staff Car Drivers

The pay scales were over turned to the disadvantage of the

petitioners by virtue of notification dated 1.12.2011 which is now the cause
of grievance to them. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that even prior to 1977 the staff car drivers were lower to the bus
drivers and were in fact the feeder channel of promotion to the bus driver.
The rules appended to the petition as Annexure P-8 would largely fortify the
submission that the bus drivers were in a higher pay scale than the staff car
drivers till the time when the notification dated 15.12.2000 created an
anomaly where the petitioners have been put at the disadvantageous
position to the staff car drivers.
The reply filed to the petition is not enlightening to say the
least. It merely talks of introduction of pay scales higher to the staff car
drivers over and above the bus drivers on the premise that it has been
introduced by 6th Pay Commission. However, notification (Annexure P-7)
issued by Govt. of Punjab, Department of Finance belies this with no
REKHA
2014.09.09 16:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

CWP no. 23455 of 2012 (O&M)

reference to the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. Evidently

there has not been correct appreciation of controversy, more particularly,
when notice of motion order issued by this Court also narrowed down
succinctly the issue before the Court. For the purposes of reference the
same is extracted herebelow:Learned senior counsel would refer to notification
dated 7.6.2000 (Annexure P-8), whereby the Punjab Roadways
(Operational)

State Service Class-III Rules, 1977 were

amended and in terms of Appendix A thereof the petitioners i.e.

the bus drivers have been reflected in a pay scale of Rs.40206200, whereas staff car drivers have been granted the lower pay
scale i.e. Rs.3330-6200.
The present writ petition has been filed with regard
to an anomaly that has arisen in the light of Annexure P-7 dated
15.12.2011, whereby the staff car drivers have been granted the
same pay scale at the post of bus drivers and the petitioners
consequently have been denied a consequential upward pay
revision.
Notice of motion for 27.2.2013.
The respondents were expected to address the anomalous
situation by giving details of the pay structure, the nature of duties and the
reason for introducing such an anomaly. Rather the introduction of a pay
structure by way of notification itself would be impermissible considering
the fact that the rules prescribed the pay band to the petitioners as also the
staff car drivers the respondents would certainly in the wrong to override
the provisions of a statute by a notification.
REKHA
2014.09.09 16:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

CWP no. 23455 of 2012 (O&M)

There is nothing on record to suggest that the statutes itself

stand amended.
Considering the matter from the above noticed perceptive I am
of the considered opinion that without altering the rules, such an
introduction of pay scales adverse to the petitioners could not have been
made by a mere notification. The reply also is absolutely silent on material
issues that would have been helpful to the Court to understand the issues in
its correct sense.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate at this
stage to dispose of the instant petitions with a positive mandate to the
respondents to consider the controversy in the light of what has been stated
above and take a final decision regarding rectification of the anomaly as
pleaded by the petitioners positively within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
At this stage, learned counsel for the State of Punjab submits
that affidavit filed by the State is deficient and so time be granted to file a
better one.
If that be so then the Court does not appreciate such a practice
of first filing a detailed reply and at the time of arguments raising a plea that
reply is deficient. The Court would have burdened the respondents with
exemplary costs for filing frivolous and half baked replies but since the
whole matter is being remitted back, it restrains its hands.
September 06, 2014
rekha

REKHA
2014.09.09 16:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

(MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE