CWP-16279-2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-16279-2023 Date of Decision :17.03.2025 Manjit Singh Budhiraja & others ...Petitioners Versus Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab Department of Public Works (B&R) and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ishan Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior DAG, Punjab. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3 by which, the claim of parity in the pay scales of the petitioners, who are working as Registrar in the PWD, B&R Branch for the grant of benefit of pay scale as admissible to the post of Under Secretary working in the State of Punjab, has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once, the petitioners were also promoted to the post of Registrar while working in the PWD, B&R Branch, the pay scale as admissible to the post of Under Secretary should have been given to them and denial of the said benefit by respondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal. AARTI SHARMA 2025.03.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16279-2023 -2- 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the post qua which the parity is being claimed by the petitioners i.e. Under Secretary is entirely different from the post of Registrar. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that not only the work profile of the post of Registrar but the qualification and experience required, is also entirely different from the post of Under Secretary 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that at no given point of time, the pay scale of the post of Registrar was equivalent to the post of Under Secretary, which fact has also been depicted in the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3. hence, the claim of the petitioners for the grant of pay scale as admissible to the post of Under Secretary may kindly be rejected. 5. I have heard learned learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with his their assistance. 6. A parity of pay scale can only be claimed in case, the two posts are identical having same eligibility qualification and the same nature of duties. 7. In the present case, the petitioners are working on the post of Registrar in the PWD, B&R Branch and are claiming parity with the post of Under Secretary in the State of Punjab. It may be noticed that the work profile of the post of Registrar and Under Secretary is entirely different. Merely that both the posts are to be filled up by way of promotion is no ground to claim parity. 8. Not only this, in the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P/1), the respondents have stated that from the year 1986 AARTI SHARMA 2025.03.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16279-2023 -3- onwards, the Registrar as well as Under Secretary are enjoying the different pay scale and the pay scale of the Under Secretary is higher than the pay scale of Registrar. That being so, in the year 2023, the parity cannot be claimed especially, when at no given point of time parity was being maintained by the State of Punjab for the post of Registrar and Under Secretary. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim regarding the parity of pay scales of the petitioners was recommended by the authorities concerned and hence, the same should have been accepted. 10. Mere recommendation of the claim regarding the parity of pay scales of the petitioners to the authorities concerned does not mean that the authorities are liable to accept the said claim of the petitioners in case, the same is not liable to the accepted. 11. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances recorded hereinbefore, as the two posts i.e. Registrar and Under Secretary are entirely different in every aspect, no ground for interference in the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) by this Court is made out and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. March 17, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No AARTI SHARMA 2025.03.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document