Raj Kumar Jindal And ANR. v. Union Territory Chandigarh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.10.2025 Raj Kumar Jindal and Another

...Petitioners

Versus

Union Territory Chandigarh and Ors.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE




    

Present:

Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
 

       ****



  , J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 01.10.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the claim of the petitioners seeking pay-scale equivalent to what is admissible to the Bookbinders working in Punjab Engineering College, has been declined. 2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the said benefit was being claimed on the basis of the written statement filed by Chandigarh Administration wherein it has been stipulated that the Bookbinders working with the Chandigarh Administration are at par with the Bookbinders working with the Punjab Engineering College. However, the learned Tribunal while ignoring the said fact has not granted the said benefit to the petitioners on the ground that they are already receiving a higher pay scale than that of Bookbinders working in Punjab and, therefore,

are not entitled to the benefit claimed. Learned counsel further submits that once the post of Bookbinder in the Chandigarh Administration and Punjab Engineering College has been acknowledged as similar and at par, the pay scale of both set of employees ought to be the same. Accordingly, a direction be issued to the Chandigarh Administration to extend the said benefit to the petitioners as well so as to bring them at par with other set of employees with regard to the pay scale.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union Territory submits that Punjab Engineering College is an independent entity empowered to grant a pay-scale as it deems fit and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the pay-scale which is applicable to the Bookbinders working in Punjab Engineering College. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the qualification required for recruitment to the post of Bookbinders in the Punjab Engineering College as compared to the recruitment to the post of Bookbinders in UT Education Department is different and therefore, once the criteria for appointment is different i.e. minimum qualification required for recruitment in both these institutes is different, the said fact is good enough to deny the parity in the pay scale as is being claimed by the petitioners who are working as a Bookbinders in U.T. Administration.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that w.e.f. 01.04.1991, the pay scale admissible to the employees working under the UT Chandigarh is the same as is being given by the State of Punjab on the corresponding post and Bookbinders working under the UT Chandigarh are

getting a higher pay scale than what the Bookbinders in the State of Punjab are getting and therefore, claiming the benefit of parity in pay scale as to what the Bookbinders in the Punjab Engineering College are getting, has rightly been declined by the Tribunal.

5.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their able assistance. 6.

It is a conceded fact that the employees working under UT Chandigarh are entitled for the pay scale as admissible to the employees working on a corresponding posts in the State of Punjab, hence the petitioners can only claim the said benefit rather than claiming the benefit of a pay scale which is being given by an independent college to its employees, which instruction is not even the part of the Chandigarh Administration. The assertion of the petitioner that they should be given a pay scale which being given by an independent institution to its employees is not made out especially when, the notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration dated 01.04.1991 only prescribes for the grant of pay scale to the employees of UT Administration as is admissible to the employees working on corresponding post in the State of Punjab. 7.

Further in the State of Punjab, the Bookbinders are getting a lower pay scale than what the employees under U. T. Chandigarh are getting which fact has also gone unrebutted, hence, claiming the pay scale being given to the Bookbinders by the Punjab Engineering College, will not birth a right in the petitioners so as to claim the said benefit. Any higher pay scale granted by an independent institution to its employees does not

give a right to another employee working in the separate institution though on a similar post so as to claim the said higher pay scale. The benefit of pay scale could have only been claimed as a matter of right in pursuance to the notification issued by the competent authority renovating the service condition, which notification, in the present case only prescribes for the grant of pay scale to the employees of UT Administration as is admissible to the employees working in a corresponding post under the State of Punjab which pay scale is already being drawn by the petitioners rather the same is being drawn at a higher scale.

8.

No other argument is raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

9.

Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out to set aside the judgment dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and the present writ petition is dismissed.


 

)  

!" #$#%#& '()
 

Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No