JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. (Oral)

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dt.04.04.2016 passed in CWP 2645-1995 by learned Single Judge of this Court.

CWP-2462-1995 filed by the respondents

2. The Writ Petition had been filed by the writ petitioners, who are working as Professors, Assistant Professors and Senior Lecturers in the Government Medical Colleges, who are governed by the Punjab Medical Education State Services (Class-I), Rules 1978 and Class II Rules 1979. They had all been promoted from the posts of Medical Officers, Senior Medical Officers to which they were initially appointed to the said posts after 01.01.1986.

3. The State of Punjab revised the pay scales of the employees working in various services in that State by Rules called Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 [for short 1988 Rules'] notified on 09.09.1988 but enforced w.e.f. 01.01.1986.

4. According to the Writ Petitioners, as per Rule 8 of the 1988 Rules, they are entitled to minimum two increments while fixing their pay in the scale of the higher post to which they were promoted, but they were wrongly denied this benefit by the State.

5. The State refuted this contention while pointing before the learned Single Judge that such benefit cannot be extended to these individuals in view of Rule 2(2)(d) of the 1988 Rules which prohibits employees whose scales of pay have been determined on the "recommendations" of the UGC for getting the benefit under the said Rules.

6. The State relied on notification dt.12.03.1989 (P3) issued by the State of Punjab, Department of Health and Family Welfare, revising scales of pay of teaching personnel of the Punjab State Medical/Dental Colleges and contended that since the pay revision benefit was given to the Writ Petitioners as per the "recommendations" of the UGC, they are not entitled to the said benefit in view of Rule 2(2)(d) of the 1988 Rules.

7. The learned Single Judge, while considering respective contentions, held that the words "the President of India is pleased to revise the scales of pay of the teaching Personnel of Punjab State medical/Dental Colleges on the "pattern" of UGC referred to Annexure P3 imply that the revised pay scales were granted under Annexure P3 on the 'pattern' of the UGC, but not on its 'recommendations', and so the Writ Petitioners would be entitled to grant of two additional increments on promotion as per Rule 8 of the 1988 Rules.

Contentions of the appellant in LPA

8. Counsel for the appellant-State contended that this view of the learned Single Judge is erroneous, since a comparison of the pay scales revised vide notification Annexure P8 dt.12.01.1988 for teaching personnel of the University and Colleges and those revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986 vide Annexure P3 notification dt.12.03.1989 for teaching personnel of the Punjab State Medical/Dental Colleges show that largely the revision of pay scales given to persons like the respondents/Writ Petitioners is in tune with 'recommendations' of UGC contained in Annexure P8 notification dt.12.01.1988.

9. He further contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in basing his judgment only on the difference in the use of language i.e. meaning of the word 'pattern' and 'recommendation', and the learned Single Judge should have taken into account the actual benefit in the revision of pay given to the respondents/Writ Petitioners and whether it matches what was recommended by the UGC in Annexure P8.

Contentions of the r