Promotion should inherently include a corresponding increase in pay, and failure to do so constitutes discrimination.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to modify their own orders Annexure P-13, P-16 and P-16A and for granting higher pay scale of the post from which the petitioners were promoted. Further a writ of certiorari has been sought, for quashing the impugned order dated

04.04.1989 (Annexure P-17).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners were employees of the respondent-Corporation. They were initially part of a joint feeder cadre (Assistants/Accounts Assistants, etc.) and drawing a pay scale of Rs. 800-1400 in the feeder cadre, which was later redesignated as Assistant District Managers (ADMs). The promotion from this feeder cadre is to the post of Enforcement Officer, later redesignated as District Manager (DM). However, upon promotion to the higher post of District Manager, they were placed in a lower pay scale of Rs. 700-1200. The respondent-Corporation's Board of Directors, in its meeting on 26.12.1988, decided to revise the pay scale for District Managers from Rs. 700-1200 to Rs. 825-1580. However, the Government of Punjab, vide order dated 04.04.1989 (Annexure P-17), directed the Corporation to revert to the old pay scales, stating the revision involved a policy matter that required government ratification. Consequently, the revised pay scale was not implemented for the petitioners.

3. The petitioners made representations and had previously filed writ petitions i.e. CWP No.10400 of 1996 and CWP No.6209 of 1998. While the Corporation passed certain orders to address the grievance, the petitioners contend that these orders did not grant them the higher promotional pay scale of Rs. 825-1580 and its subsequent revised scales, but merely continued them in the lower scale with an increment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the very foundation of the pay structure is defeated when employees are granted a lower pay scale upon promotion to a higher post. The petitioners, who were senior-most in the feeder cadre drawing a scale of Rs. 800-1400, were subjected to a financial loss by being placed in the scale of Rs. 700-1200 upon their promotion as District Managers during

1984-85.

5. It is further contended that the Board of Directors of the Corporation, in exercise of its powers under Section 34 of the 1970 Act and the corresponding Regulations, legally revised the pay scale to Rs.825-1580 after considering special circumstances to cure the anomaly. The impugned order dated 04.04.1989 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Government, which halted the implementation of this revision, is unsustainable as it interferes with the statutory powers of the Board and creates an illogical pay anomaly where juniors in the feeder cadre drew higher salaries than seniors in the promotional post. Further, the counsel submits that the subsequent orders passed by the Corporation (Annexures P-13, P-16, P-16/A) in compliance with this Court's earlier directions provided no meaningful relief, as they failed to grant the duly revised promotional pay scale and its corresponding subsequent revisions, thereby perpetuating the injustice. The inaction of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutes a perverse decision that no reasonable authority would have arrived at if relevant material had been considered.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the government had rejected the decision of the Board of Directors to upscale the pay scale of District Managers on the ground that it