The main legal point established in the judgment is that the division and classification of Patwaris into Junior and Senior categories without any basis was arbitrary and violated the constitutional right to equality.

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. Since all the above titled petitions i.e Civil Writ Petition No.5382 of 2003, No.16546-2009, No.16836-2012, No.1985-2014, No.2128-2014 and No.15464-2012, raise the common questions of law, therefore, are being decided by a common order. For convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.5382-2003.

2. The petitioners by way of this writ petition assail the notification dated 25.02.1991 issued by the respondents whereby the post of Patwari has been split in two parts; Junior and Senior Patwaris and further different pay scales have been allocated to Senior Patwaris and Junior Patwaris as 1350-2400 and 950-1800 with different allowances by dividing the total number of posts of Patwari to 50% each.

3. Brief facts which require to be noticed are that earlier the Patwaris working in Revenue Department of Punjab Government were commonly placed in the same pay scale by the 1st pay commission as well as by the 2nd pay commission. On 01.01.1978, Patwaris were granted two tier pay scale 400-660 and selection grade of 510-800. In 1988, the Patwaris were granted the same pay scale w.e.f 01.01.1986. However, on 25.02.1991, the Cadre of Patwaris was split into two parts, as above, by issuing the impugned notification dt. 25.02.1991.

4. It is contended that the petitioners are working as Patwaris with the Revenue Department of Punjab and are appointed in District Jalandhar. It is undisputed that their common conditions of service are governed by The Punjab Revenue Patwaris, Class-III Service Rules, 1966 and under Rule 2(h) of these Rules, Patwari means a Revenue Patwari including an Assistant Patwari. Under Rule 16 of these Rules, the scales of pay for the post of Patwari as stated in Appendix "A" was Rs.60-175 and no separate pay scales for Senior or Junior Patwaris was stipulated in the Service Rules. As per Rule 10 of the said Rules, direct appointment as Patwari in the Punjab Revenue Patwaris Class-IlI Service Rules is made from amongst the accepted Patwari candidates or by promotion from amongst the Assistant Patwaris besides by transfer or absorption prescribed under this Rule. The qualifications to the post of Patwari do not distinguish any separate requirement of Senior or Junior Patwari. Therefore, there is no distinction or classification of Senior or Junior Patwaris as per the said Rules and there is a single unified Cadre of Patwaris. There is a common joint Seniority of Patwaris in the unified Cadre without any distinction, quota or classification of any Senior or Junior Patwari in the Cadre and inter se Seniority of Patwaris is maintained districtwise which is determined by length of continuous service in the Cadre of Patwari. There is no breakup of Senior or Junior Patwari. The Patwaris are governed by the same conditions of service as per the above service Rules and they perform the same duties, functions and job responsibilities without any distinction or difference of job description. There are no separate designated posts of Senior or Junior Patwari in the Service Rules which have common application to all Patwaris who are identical.

Learned counsel further contended that the placement of senior Patwaris in Rs.1365-2410 in the scale of Rs.4400-7000 which gave them a higher jump in the enhanced pay scale of Rs.5910-20,200, gave them a further higher leap in the further enhancement in the scale of Rs.10,300-34,800 thereby still creating and perpetuating the discrimination of the earlier division of junior and senior Patwaris. To demonstrate the effect of the artificial discrimination created by the two pay scales of Junior and Senior Patwaris and to effectively establish the recurring pecuniary loss and civil consequences suffered by the petitioners in common, the chart has been placed.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the law laid down in Attar Singh v. State of Haryana 1995(1) SCT 107 (P&H), Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another vide CWP No.171