pay scales of bus drivers

CWP no. 23455 of 2012 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

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 petitionersin CWP no. 23455 of 2012

Mr. P.K.Goklaney, Advocate for petitionersin 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

CWP no. 23455 of 2012 (O&M) 2

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 thepost

No. of posts Scale of pay(in rupees)

Permanent Temporary Total

4

Bus Driver

1131 1988 3119

4020-120-4280-140-4400-150-5000-160-5800-200-6200

5

Staff Car Drivers

8 11 19

3330-110-5660-120-4260-140-4400-150-5000-160-5800-200-6200

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

CWP no. 23455 of 2012 (O&M) 3

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.4020-

6200, 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.

CWP no. 23455 of 2012 (O&M) 4

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 (MAHESH GROVER)rekha JUDGE

[email protected]:02:41+0530High Court ChandigarhREKHAI attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document




pay scales of bus drivers

Documents