2008 (10) TMI 740

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....W.P. No. 1701 of 2000, decided on 21.8.2001), which was subsequently followed in the case of Prem Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (C.W.P. No. 14792 of 2002, decided on 17.10.2003, Annexure P-l). 2. The factual position in the present case is not in dispute therefore, we do not feel the necessity to discuss the same in detail. The controversy in the instant petition relates to grant of equal pay scale to the Book-Binders of the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (for brevity, 'the University') which was being given to the Book-Binders working the Haryana Government Press. Prior to 1.1.1986 the Book-Binders of Haryana Government Press were in the same pay scale of Rs. 400-600 which the Book-Binders of the University wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny difference in quality of work discharged by the incumbents of the respective posts. So far as the averments made in the written statement are concerned, there is not even a whisper to indicate that the duties and responsibilities of the Binders employed in the University Press are different from the duties and responsibilities of Binders engaged in the Haryana Government Press. In Mewa Ram Kajojia's case (supra), the Supreme Court additionally held that employees could be classified on the basis of the qualifications so as to be denied equality in matters relating to pay scales. Insofar as the instant controversy is concerned, it is not the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the qualifications for appointment to the post of Binde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioner, which has been admittedly granted to the similarly situated Book-Binders. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 14.5.2007 (P-5) and thereafter filed C.W.P. No. 11630 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the legal notice in accordance with law within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy (P-6). The claim of the """ petitioner has been rejected merely on the ground that he has sent the legal notice after a huge delay in the year 2007 whereas he was actually retired on 31.8.1998 from the post of Book-Binder, thus, the benefit of decision of this Court is not admissible to him and he is not entitled for the revision of pay scales and co....