***

Sandeep Moudgil, J. –

1. The petitioners, who are/were working as Service Station Incharges (SSI) in Punjab Roadways, have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- w.e.f. 01.12.2011 to the petitioners along with all consequential benefits.

2. The post of SSI is governed by the Punjab Roadways (Workshop) Group 'C' Service Rules, 2009. The post is filled 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Technician Grade-I is the feeder post for promotion to SSI. Thus, SSI is the promotional post in relation to Technician Grade-I.

3. Prior to 01.01.2006, Technician Grade-I carried the pay-scale of Rs.4550-7220 and that of SSI was Rs.5000-8100. After revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the Technician Grade-I was placed in Rs.5910-20,200 + Grade Pay Rs.3000/- whereas SSI was placed in Rs.10,300-34,800 + Grade Pay Rs.3200/-. By upon subsequent pay revision effective from 01.12.2011, Technician Grade-I was also placed in Rs.10,300-34,800 + Grade Pay Rs.3200/- and the post of SSI, however, continued in the same scale. Consequently, the feeder post and the promotional post were made to carry the identical pay band and Grade Pay without any distinction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in bringing the pay scale of Technician Gr-1 and SSI on equal pedestal has created pay anomaly as according to them, SSI is a higher post involving higher duties and responsibilities and is also the promotional post for Technician Grade-I and as such the historical pay structure itself shows that SSI had always carried a higher scale and therefore, a promotional post cannot ordinarily be placed in the same scale as its feeder post.

5. The respondents, in their original reply, submit that SSI was granted the scale of Rs.10,300-34,800 + Grade Pay Rs.3200/- pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay Commission. According to their learned counsel, fixation or revision of pay scales is a matter of Government policy and expert determination and that any alleged anomaly could be considered by the Anomaly Committee and the petitioners cannot claim a particular pay scale as a matter of right.

6. In their subsequent reply, the respondents specifically contend that there is no anomaly in the case of SSI inasmuch as the petitioners in substance are seeking parity with Junior Engineers, whereas the qualifications and service rules governing Junior Engineers are different from those governing SSI.

7. The respondents in their reply dated 16.04.2026 have admitted that the post of Technician Grade-I and SSI presently carry the same scale of Rs.10,300-34,800 + Grade Pay Rs.3200/-, however, that ipso facto does not require grant of a higher scale to SSI by relying upon Rule 4.4(c)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, in terms whereof, a promotion may result in higher rank, status and emoluments by way of pay fixation even where the pay scale remains the same.

8. It is also stated that some petitioners were directly appointed as SSI, while others were promoted from Technician Grade-I. The respondents further state that the petitioners have subsequently been promoted as Works Managers and are drawing a higher scale. On this basis, the respondents contend that the petition has become infructuous.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the judgment was kept reserved on 05.08.2026.

10. It is crucial to determine whether, after 01.12.2011, the feeder post of Technician Grade-I and the promotional post of SSI could lawfully be placed in the identical pay scale of Rs.10,300-34,800 + Grade Pay Rs.3200/-, or whether the petitioners are entitled to a higher scale/Grade Pay on the SSI post?

11. In this regard, Rule 4.4(c)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules applies where an employee is promoted to a post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance. The rule regulates the manner in which the initial pay of the employee is to be fixed on such promotion. It ensures that the employee does not lose financially merely because of his promotion. The said Rule is reproduced as under:-

“4.4 (c) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where a Government employee holding a post in a temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above his pay drawn by him in the lower post provided it is certified by the Head of the Department in which the Government employee was holding the lower post that he would have continued to officiate in the lower post but for his promotion/appointment to the higher post:”

12. It may be true that Rule 4.4(c)(i) may provide the promotee with higher emoluments even where the scale of the feeder and promotional posts is identical. However, the issue in the present case is somewhat different. The petitioners are not merely claiming an additional increment on their individual promotion. Their principal grievance is that, by the revision effective from 01.12.2011, the feeder post itself has been brought at par with the promotional post, although the two posts were historically placed in different scales.

13. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Balwan Singh 2003(5) SLR 771, the Division Bench considered a similar situation where the feeder post and the promotional post had been placed in the same scale. The Court, following Sunder Lal Jain v. State of Haryana 1995(1) SCT 564, held that such equation constituted an anomaly and that the promotional post was required to carry a higher scale.

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The pay scales of the two posts had from the beginning been different and the post of Helper Grade-I carried a lower scale of pay. It was for the first time in May, 1990 that the two-posts were equated in the matter of their pay scales when the same were revised by the Board. It is common case of the parties that prior to 1.1.1986 the post of Helper Grade-I carried the pay scale of Rs. 350-600 whereas that of Technician Grade-II had the scale of Rs. 400-700. When the pay scales were revised w.e.f. 1.1.986 the grades of the TWO posts were again different. The post of Helper Grade-I carried the scale of Rs. 825-1300 whereas Technician Grade-II was in the scale of Rs. 950-1500. Not only this, the post of Helper Grade-I is a feeder post from which post promotions are made to the higher post of Technician Grade-II. In such a situation we are clearly of the view that the two posts cannot be equated in the matter of their pay scales. As held by this Court in Sunder Lal Jain and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1995(1) SLR 215, it is wholly unreasonable to place a lower post and a higher post in the same pay scale. Where a lower post is equated in the matter of pay scale with the promotional post then it is a clear anomaly which is highly irrational and has to be removed. This is precisely what the learned Single Judge has done. The Apex Court in Tarsem Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, observed that the promotion is always a step towards advancement to a higher position, grade or honour and that promotion as understood in service law jurisprudence means advancement in rank and grade or both. We are, therefore, of the opinion that if promotion is an advancement in rank and grade or both, the promotional post cannot carry the same pay scale as that of the feeder post and that it must carry a higher scale. No fault can thus, be found with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge.

15. The principle emerging from these decisions is that there is no absolute rule that every promotion must invariably carry a different pay scale. At the same time, where the service structure specifically makes one post for the feeder and the other for the promotional post, and the promotional post historically carried a higher scale, the State cannot justify their continued equalisation merely by relying upon the rule relating to pay fixation on promotion.

16. In the present case, the respondents themselves admit that Technician Grade-I is the feeder post for SSI and that both posts now carry Rs.10,300-34,800 + Grade Pay Rs.3200/-. The earlier pay structure also shows that SSI carried a higher scale than Technician Grade-I. Thus, the anomaly arose only after the subsequent revision of the feeder post.

17. The respondents' reliance upon Rule 4.4(c)(i) does not by itself answer this issue. The rule provides a mechanism for fixation of pay when an individual is promoted. It cannot, by itself, be treated as a justification for permanently prescribing an identical substantive scale for the feeder and promotional posts.

18. The respondents' further contention regarding the difference between SSI and Junior Engineers also does not completely answer the petitioners' grievance. The claim can be examined independently of parity with Junior Engineers. The primary question is whether the promotional post of SSI can legitimately remain in the same scale as its feeder post.

19. The subsequent promotion of the petitioners as Works Managers also does not render the petition infructuous. The petition concerns the pay attached to the post of SSI for the period during which the petitioners held that post. Any consequential monetary benefit, if otherwise found admissible, cannot be defeated merely because the petitioners were subsequently promoted.

20. At the same time, determination of the exact higher Grade Pay to be attached to SSI involves consideration of the nature of duties, qualifications, recruitment method, promotional hierarchy and the overall pay structure. Such determination is primarily within the domain of the competent authority/Finance Department.

21. Consequently, while the Court finds substance in the petitioners' grievance that the feeder and promotional posts have been placed in the identical scale, it would not be appropriate for the Court itself to prescribe Grade Pay Rs.4,800/- without consideration by the competent authority.

22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the competent authority, in consultation with the Finance Department, to reconsider the pay structure of the post of Service Station Incharge in the light of the above discussion, particularly the fact that Technician Grade-I is its feeder post and both posts have been placed in the identical scale from 01.12.2011. Let a speaking order be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the competent authority finds that the promotional post of SSI is required to carry a higher scale/Grade Pay, the consequential benefits shall be worked out in accordance with law and the consequential benefit shall be released to the petitioners within one month thereafter.

23. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.

24. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Petition allowed.

********