Gujarat High Court
Col(Retd) D V Singh vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 13 October, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11063 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
COL(RETD) D V SINGH, MVC....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
TANNA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SWAPNESHWAR GAUTAM, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH
MR. P.K. JANI, ADDL. ADV. GENERAL for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : / /2017
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 31
HC-NIC Page 1 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, an ex-army man, has prayed for the following reliefs;
"(a) Be pleased to allow this writ application.
(b) Be pleased to quash and set aside impugned order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the respondent authorities.
(b1) Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to comply as per the recommendations made by the Pay Anomaly Committee dated 10.5.2000.
(b2) Be pleased to quash and set aside the report of the Cabinet Sub-Committee dated 24.05.2005 rejecting the report of the Pay Anomaly Committee.
(b3) Be pleased to declare that the report of the Cabinet Sub-Committee dated 24.05.2005 alongwith resolution passed by the respondent no.2 dated 23.11.2011 are contra to the principle of natural justice, perplexing and bad in law.
(c ) Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to revise the salary of the present petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and to pay to the present petitioner salary in the super time scale as available to the DIG cadre from 1.1.1986 and to further revise the pay scale of the petitioner at appropriate level i.e. in DIG cadre in revision of pay which had taken place in 1998 w.e.f 1.1.1996.
(d) Be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled to salary in the super time scale as available to the cadre of DIG from 1.1.1986 i.e. the date on which effect was given to the Revision of Pay Rules, 1987. This Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled to salary as available to the DIG cadre in all subsequent revision of pay including revision of pay 1998 w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
(e) Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay to the present petitioner all difference of pay and other emoluments on account of the petitioner being entitled to salary in super time scale as available to the Page 2 of 31 HC-NIC Page 2 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT cadre of DIG w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and upon appropriate adjustment being carried out in subsequent revision of pay.
(f) Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to appropriately revise the pension of the present petitioner based upon his entitlement to the salary in the scale as available to DIG cadre w.e.f 1.1.1986 and all subsequent revision of pay.
(g) Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay al arrears as available to the present petitioner as per prayer (d) with an appropriate interest which may be decided by this Hon'ble Court.
(h) Be pleased to take appropriate action with regard to the averments at para no.4.8.
(I) Be pleased to grant exemplary cost of this petition.
(j) Any other and further relief as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The case of the writ applicant is that he was appointed as the Deputy Commandant General cum Joint Director, Civil Defense, in the year 1985 in the pay scale as available at the relevant point of time to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Level-II. In the year 1987, as a result of the GCS (ROP) Rules, 1987, the revision of pay of the State Government employees had taken place with effect from 1.1.1986. In the said rules, the post of the DIG, Level-I & Level-II were merged and a common pay scale was made applicable to them. The grievance of the writ applicant is that instead of revising his pay scale and putting him at par with the merged post of the DIG in the super time scale, the pay scale of the writ applicant was revised in the selection grade which is a level junior to the level of DIG. This has led to the filing of this writ application.
Page 3 of 31HC-NIC Page 3 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT
3. The facts, as narrated in this petition, are as under;
3.1 The petitioner states that the State Government through the Home Department, vide Resolution dated 22.1.1985, had been pleased to to create one temporary post of the Dy. Commandant General cum Joint Director Civil Defense, Gazette Class-I, in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-125/2250 in the Home Guards Organisation. The petitioner states that vide a Resolution of the Home Department dated 20/02/1985, the State Govt., through the Home Department had appointed the present petitioner who was at the relevant point of time retired as Lt. Colonel from the Indian Army. The petitioner was approved for the next rank of Colonel in 1984 and having adequate qualifications to be a Brigadier. The petitioner had been initially appointed vide the said order for a period of one year and later on, the same had been extended. Annexed here with and marked as ANNEXURE--A collectively are copies of Resolutions dated_22/ 1/ 1985 and 20/2/1985.
3.2 The petitioner states that the petitioner had been originally appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-125/2-2250 which at the relevant point of time was the pay scale made available to the post of the DIG Level-II. At this stage the petitioner states that at the relevant point of time in the scales of pay available to officers in the Indian Police Service envisages different scales of pay as junior scale, senior scale, selection grade and super time scale. Super time scale envisages two different pay scales for DIG Level-II on which pay scale the petitioner was appointed and a higher scale of pay for DIG Level-I. Super time scale further contemplates two Page 4 of 31 HC-NIC Page 4 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT more pay scales in the post of IG and DG. It is stated that upon revision of pay pursuant to the GCS (ROP) Rules 1987, the pay scales of the employees of the State Govt. came to be revised w.e.f. 1/1/1986. It would be pertinent to note that the scales of pay for IPS under the said Revision of Pay Rules clearly envisage that the cadre of DIG falls in super time scale. Further more, the two levels in the DIG cadre existing prior to the ROP Rules had been merged and one single cadre of DIG had been created carrying the pay scale of Rs. 5100-150-5400, which pay scale on completion of 18th year later would be revised to Rs. 5100-150-6150. The petitioner states that unfortunately for him due to some mix up at some stage, though the petitioner had been appointed on the pay scale of DIG Level-II, after revision of pay, he was paid salary as available to an officer in the selection grade i.e. Rs.4500-150-5700, instead of pay scale available to DIG (super time scale) i.e. Rs.5100-150-5400. Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-B collectively are copies of two charts which denote the scales of pay prior to GCS (ROP) Rules 1987 and after the said revision.
3.3 The petitioner states that after his original appointment as the Dy. Commandant General cum Joint Director Civil Defense in the year 1985 for a period of one year, his appointment came to be extended from time to time, during which period the State of Gujarat, through Home Department had framed "Dy. Commandant General cum Joint Director Civil Defense Recruitment Rules 1992". The petitioner states that pursuant to the said rules being framed, the GPSC had conducted a selection process and ultimately had selected the present petitioner upon which selection the Home Department had Page 5 of 31 HC-NIC Page 5 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT vide notification dated 14/12/1994 appointed the petitioner as the Dy. Commandant General Home Guard cum Joint Director Civil Defense. Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C collectively are copies of Recruitment Rules published by the Home Department vide Notification dated 31/7/1992 as well as appointment order of the petitioner dated 14/12/1994.
3:4 The petitioner states that prior to the period before he had been selected and appointed on regular basis by the Home Department, the petitioner had on various occasions pointed out this discrepancy in the pay scale after the revision of pay 1987 to his immediate superior during which time he had been assured of positive action. It is submitted that thereafter on being selected and appointed on regular basis on the said post, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 herein through his immediate superior the Commandant General Home Guards on 20/12/1994.. The petitioner states that at the relevant point of time after erroneous revision of pay, the petitioner had represented to various senior officers through his immediate superior and he was assured time and again of his case being positively considered by the State Govt. The petitioner states that after much efforts since it appeared that the respondent authorities were not responding to his request, he had submitted a representation in writing to the respondent No.3 herein through his immediate superior i.e. the Commandant General of Home Guards on 20/12/1994 and the said representation had been forwarded by the Commandant General Home Guards to the respondent No.3 on the very day. The petitioner states that in the said representation the petitioner had explained the error that had crept in at the time of revision and Page 6 of 31 HC-NIC Page 6 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT had further requested the respondent to appropriately revise the salary of the petitioner w.e.f.' 1/1/1986. Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-D collectively are copies of representation dated 20/12/ 1994 as well as forwarding letter by the Commandant General Home Guards to the respondent No.3 of the same date.
3.5 The petitioner states that again vide a detailed and exhaustive communication dated 24/10/1996, his immediate superior the Commandant General Home Guards had submitted a representation to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, inter alia requesting that the discrepancy in scale of pay made available to the petitioner may be redressed. It would be pertinent to note that the said Commandant General has very exhaustively submitted the reasons for the petitioner to be paid salary in the scale of DIG i.e. super time scale, pursuant to the revision of pay 1987. Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-E is copy of communication dated 24/10/1996 addressed by the then Commandant General Home Guard to the respondent No.3 herein.
3.6 The petitioner states that thereafter the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 on 5/11/1996 inter alia requesting that the discrepancy in the pay scale made available to the present petitioner may be resolved and the petitioner may be paid salary in the scale of DIG as available after revision of pay 1987 w.e.f. 1/1/1986 and further grant to the present petitioner higher scale as available to a DIG on completion of 6-7 years of service. Annexed herewith Page 7 of 31 HC-NIC Page 7 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT and marked as ANNEXURE-F is copy of representation dated 5/11/ 1996.
3.7 The petitioner states that during this period the State Govt. had vide Resolution through the Finance Department constituted a Pay Anomaly Committee to examine representations of pay anomalies and allied matters of employees of the State Govt. The said Resolution dated 20/5/1998 inter alia included in its terms of reference authorities to consider anomalies arising out of the Gujarat Civil Service (Revision of Pay) Rule 1987. Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-G is copy of Resolution dated 20/5/1998.
4. The Pay Anomaly Committee, constituted by the State Government, looked into the issue which is a subject matter of this petition, and in its report dated 10.05.2000, stated as under;
"A representation was made by retired Col. D. V. Singh who was discharging duties on this post that while the pay is fixed of Rs.4500-7000 as on 1/1/1986 for the post in question which should have been Rs.5100-6150.
The Pay Anomaly Committee cross checked certain things in reference to representation made by him. From whatever information is made available by Home Department by resolution dated 22/1/1985 a post was created for Commandant General Home Guard and Joint Director Civil Defense in the pay scale of Rs.2000-2250 and by a resolution dated 20/2/1985 Col. Singh was appointed. At that point of time the pay scale of Dy Inspector General of Police was Rs. 2000-2250. Col Singh had argued that the post of Dy Commandant General Home Guard and Joint Director Civil Defense was Page 8 of 31 HC-NIC Page 8 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT equivalent to Dy. Inspector General of Police Group-2 and therefore in his appointment order pay scale was kept at Rs 2000-2250. Col. Singh additionally stated that after accepting the 4th Pay Commission Report, Dy. Inspector General of Police Group-2 (Rs. 2000-2250) and Dy Inspector General of Police Group-1 (Rs. 2250-2500) were merged into cadre of Dy. Inspector General of Police and pay scale was Rs. 5100-6150. Additionally Col. Singh had stated that his post is equivalent to Dy. Inspector General of Police Group-2 and therefore from 1/1/1986 pay scale was not raised to Rs. 5100- 6150, there is anomaly. It is true that the pay scale of D.S.P. (Selection Grade) was Rs.4500-5700 and not that of Dy. Inspector General of Police. The Committee after perusing necessary files and studying the same has come to the conclusion that there is substance in statement of Col. Singh that his post was equivalent to Dy Inspector General of Police Group-2 and it is necessary to note at this stage that while Col. Singh was appointed the pay scale of Dy. Ins1ector General of Police-2 was Rs 2000-2250 and the pay scale of D SP. was lower. After considering the case of Col. Singh the Committee if convinced that there is an anomaly in not giving pay scale of Rs.5100-6150 from 1/1/1986 to Col. Singh and therefore Committee recommended pay scale of Rs. 5100-6150 from 1/1/1986. Undoubtedly Committee has taken into all the fact that the Govt. had fixed various pay scales but there was no pay scale of Rs.5100-6150 and therefore taking into consideration Committee recommended that Col. Singh should be paid from 1/1/1986 pay scale of Rs.5100-6150 but the same should be treated as personal pay scale of Col. Singh."
5. Thus, it appears that the Pay Anomaly Committee found merit and substance in the case of the writ applicant and recommended the pay scale of Rs.5100-6150 with effect from 1.1.1986.
6. However, the Cabinet Sub-Committee, constituted by the State Government to look into the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Committee, declined to accept the recommendation so far as the writ applicant is concerned, observing as under in its report dated 24.05.2005.
Page 9 of 31HC-NIC Page 9 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT "The pay scale of this cadre from 1/1/1986 is Rs.4500- 5700 and from 1/1/1996 is Rs. 14300-18300. The officer working on this post has requested pay scale as on 1/1/1986 to the tune of Rs.5100-6150 on the ground that Dy. Inspector General of Police was given from 1/1/1986 pay scale of Rs. 5100-6150. The Pay Anomaly committee has recommended Rs. 5100-6150 as personal pay scales for this officer.
This is representation of one individual. Comparison is made by Dy. Inspector General of Police which cannot be accepted. Against the pre-revised scale of Rs. 2000-2250 from 1/1/1986 Rs.4500-5700 pay scales are given and similarly pre-revised scale of Rs. 2000-2250 pay scales are Rs. 5300-6200 therefore this recommendation cannot be accepted."
7. Mr. Tanna, the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ applicant submitted that the Pay Anomaly Committee, being an expert body and having considered the case of the writ applicant herein and having recommended a particular pay scale by assigning reasons, the Cabinet Sub-Committee ought to have accepted the recommendation. According to the learned senior counsel, the Cabinet Sub-Committee has just brushed aside the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Committee. In such circumstances, referred to above, he prays that their being merit in this petition, the same be allowed and the relief, as prayed for, be granted.
8. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. P.K. Jani, the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State Government. According to Mr. Jani, no case worth the name is made out by the writ applicant for the grant of the relief.
Page 10 of 31HC-NIC Page 10 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT
9. Mr. Jani relied on the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State, duly affirmed by the Undersecretary, Home Department;
"5. I submit that the petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to quash and set aside impugned order dated 04.09.2009 passed by the respondent authority and directed the respondent authority to revise the salary of the present petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and to pay to the present petitioner salary in the super time scale as available to the DIG cadre from 01.01.1986 and to further revise the pay scale of the petitioner at appropriate level i.e. in DIG cadre in revision of pay which had taken place in 1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
6. I submit that the Hon'ble Court (Coram; Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah) passed an order dated 15.06.2009 in Special Civil Application No. 773 of 2009 filed earlier by the petitioner. As per this order, the Government- Respondents were directed to take an appropriate decision on of the recommendations of the Cabinet in this regard within a period of six weeks and communicate the outcome of the same to the petitioner. The Government Respondent (Finance Department) filed a Misc. Civil Application No. 2017 of 2009 in Special Civil Application No. 773 of 2009 with a prayer to extend the said time limit for a further period of two months. Meanwhile decision in the matter was taken by the Government which was communicated to the Home Department vide letter dated 02.09.2009 of the Finance Department. In turn, the Home Department communicated the said decision to the petitioner vide the letter dated 04.09.2009. This decision was produced before the Hon'ble Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah) while hearing of the said Misc. Civil Application No. 2017 of 2009 in Special Civil Application No. 773 of 2009.
The Hon'ble Court passed an order dated 08.09.2009 extending the time limit up to 08.09.2009 and the said Misc. Civil Application was disposed of. The original petitioner was also granted liberty by the Hon'ble Court in the same order to challenge the said decision, if aggrieved, by way of independent proceedings, which could be considered in accordance with law on its merits.
Page 11 of 31HC-NIC Page 11 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Hence, the original petitioner has filed the present petition on the same subject-matter.
7. I submit that the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 02.09.2009 addressed to the Home Department i.e. respondent no. 3 provided remarks as well as the decision in the matter, which are again reiterated and provided accordingly that the petitioner is a retired Deputy Commandant General, Home Guards and Joint Director, Civil Defence. His pay scale on this post was Rs. 4500-5700 and he represented to grant him the pay scale of Rs.5100-6150 at par with the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
8. I submit that petitioner submitted individual representation to the said committee and he was heard. The Committee examined his representation. The Home Department created the post of Deputy Commandant General, Home Guard and Joint Director, Civil Defence in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-2250 vide their Government Resolution dated 22.01.1985 and the petitioner was appointed on the same post vide their Government Resolution dated 20.02.1985. At that point of time, the pay scale of the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group-II was Rs. 2000-2250. Subsequently, after the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, the two posts of Deputy Inspector General of Police Group-II (In the pay scale of Rs. 2000- 2250) and Group-I (In the pay scale of Rs. 2250- 2500) were merged into post called Deputy Inspector General of Police in the pay Scale of Rs. 5100-6150. The petitioner represented before the Committee that his initial appointment being in the pay scale of Rs.2000-2250 at par with the pay scale of the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group-II, he could be entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 5100-6150 after the merger of the two posts of D.I.G., Group-II and Group- I. The petitioner was actually placed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-5700 at par with the post of D.S.P. (Selection Grade). The Committee took cognizance of the fact that the pay scale of Rs.5100- 6150 was not existent in the pay scales fixed by the State Government, meaning thereby that the pay scale of Rs. 5100- 6150 for the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police belonging to the pay scales accepted by the Government of India. However, the Committee recommended in .favour of the Page 12 of 31 HC-NIC Page 12 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT petitioner to grant him the pay scale of Rs. 5100-6150 as a personal pay scale.
9. I submit that the Cabinet Sub-Committee did not accept the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Committee to grant him personal pay scale of Rs. 5100- 6150 because the comparison of the post of the petitioner with the post of the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not acceptable.
10. I submit that in the initial appointment of the petitioner the pay scale of his post was Rs.2000-2250 and his revised pay scale was Rs. 4500-5700 w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
Hence, his demand and the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Committee was rejected by the Cabinet Sub- Committee. The Cabinet agreed to the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee to reject the demand of the petitioner."
10. Mr. Jani has made available a chart, comparing the Home Guards Organization with the Police Organization so far as the educational requirements, recruitment process, recruitment rules, nature of duty, promotion avenue, difference of salary etc. is concerned. The same is as under;
Particulars Home Guards Organization Police Organization Remarks Dy. Commandant General Inspector General Home Guards (DIG) Non IPS (IG) IPS Cadre Cadre Class-I Class-I
1)Education 1)Dated 22.01.1985 Government of Requirement creating the post of India Ministry of temporary Deputy Home Affairs Commandant General cum Guidelines No-
Director Civil Defense 45020/11/97-IPS-II Gazetted Class-l in the Dated-15/01/1999 Home Guards Organization. Minimum 4 years
2) Dated: 31.07.1992 Home completed IPS Department Notification cadre in view the constitution of India Article provision Rules 6A 309, of the IPS Recruitment Rules, Promotion:--A) Battalion Page 13 of 31 HC-NIC Page 13 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Commandant in the Border 1954 Wing Home guard served as Attached Co y such for at last 5 years B) Army officer not below to the rank of Lt. Colonel or Indian Police Service Officer not below to the rank of DSP.
3) Direct Selection. A) Not
more than 52 years age
B) A Graduate recognize
university.
C) Army as a regular
commissioned Officer not
lower than Lt. Colonel and
minimum 5 years
experience.
D) Police Officer rank DSP
and 5 years experience and
BSF, CRPF, SRPF and
commandant and 5 years.
Attached Copy
2)Recruitment Home Department By UPSC
Process Resolution Dated: examination and
22.01.1985 and notification Ministry of Home
Dated: 31.07.1992 and Affairs / Grah
Notification dated: Mantralaya
25.05.2012 as per Rules Government of
and Regulation promotion India / Bharat
and direct recruitment Sarkar, IPS
Promotion
Guideline No.
45020/11/97~IPS- II
Dated: 15.01.1999
3)Recruitment Resolution No. 1)By Direct
Rules HGS/1084/5617/F Dated: Selection through
22.01.1985 UPSC examination
2) By Promotion as
2)Notification No.
per Guideline No.
GG/92/141/HGS/1084/3617/
45020/11/97-IPS- II
F Dated: 31.07.1992
Dated: 15.01.1999;
3)Notification No.
GG/33/12/HGD/102003/502
5(1)/ F Dated: 25.05.2012
4)Nature of 1 HOME GUARDS' 1)All India Police
Duty ORGANIZATION ALL Organization Duties
GUJARAT DISTRICT HOME Administration, Law
GUARDS AND 2 BORDER And Order And
WINGS HOME GUARDS Other Police Part
BATTALION UNDER THE Department
DEPUTY COMMANDANT Different Work All
GENERAL SUPER VISION, Parts
Page 14 of 31
HC-NIC Page 14 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017
C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT
TRAINING, ADMINISTRATION 2)AS PER MANUAL , DISCIPLINE AND WELFARE, FINANCIAL MATTERS AND ARMS AND AMMUNITIONS ALL PAID AND VOLUNTEERS HOME GUARDS DUTIES AND ALL FESTIVALS, LOW AND ORDERS DUTIES ARRANGEMENT
2.RULES AND REGULATION HOME HOME GUARDS ACT 1947 & BOMBAY HOME GUARDS RULES 1953 Attached copiy.
5)Promotion Non Promotion Cadre (Non Promotion Cadre
Avenue IPS Cadre) (IPS):-
1)IG Rank
2)DG Rank
6)Difference PAY SCALE-2000-125/2- (DIG Level-I) (IG)
of Salary 2250 PAY SCALE-2250-
125/2-2750
4500-5700 (DIG Level II) PAY
SCALE-2000-125/2-
37400-67000-Grade Pay- 2250
8700
5100-6150
37400-67000
Grade Pay-10000
11. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Jani prays that there being no merit in this writ application, the same may be rejected.
12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the writ applicant has been able to make out any case for the grant of the relief.
13. The Pay Anomaly Committee has recommended personal special pay scale of Rs.5100-6150 with effect from 01.01.1986. The Cabinet Sub-Committee rejected the recommendation of Page 15 of 31 HC-NIC Page 15 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT the Pay Anomaly Committee on the ground that as the case on hand is one of one single representation, the post of the writ applicant cannot be treated at par with the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
14. In the case of M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 2004(4) SCC 646, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paras-10,13,17,18,25 and 26 held as under;
"13. The Pay Commissions are constituted for evaluating the duties and functions of the employees and the nature thereof vis-`-vis the educational qualifications required therefor. Although the Pay Commission is considered to be an expert body, the State in its wisdom and in furtherance of a valid policy decision may or may not accept its recommendations. The State in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred upon it by the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India can unilaterally make or amend the conditions of service of its employees by framing appropriate rules. The State in terms of the said provision is also entitled to give a retrospective effect thereto. A policy decision had been adopted by the State that the post of Extension Officers shall be filled up only by graduates. Such a policy decision ex facie cannot be termed to be arbitrary or irrational attracting the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A dying scale was provided by the State for the non-graduates. Fresh recruitments were to be made only from amongst the persons who held the requisite educational qualification. With a view to avoid any discrimination between the new recruits and the serving employees who possessed the same qualification, the State cannot be said to have acted illegally in granting a higher scale of pay also for the existing degree holders.
17 The said dicta was applied by this Court in Mewa Ram Kanojia (supra), stating :
"5. While considering the question of application of principle of 'Equal pay for equal work' it has to be borne Page 16 of 31 HC-NIC Page 16 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be among the equals. Unequal cannot claim equality."
18. The principle was reiterated in V. Markendeya (supra), observing:
"13. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that where two classes of employees perform identical or similar duties and carrying out the same functions with the same measure of responsibility having same academic qualification, they would be entitled to equal pay. If the State denies them equality in pay, its action would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and the court will strike down the discrimination and grant relief to the aggrieved employees. But before such relief is granted the court must consider and analyse the rationale behind the State action in prescribing two different scale of pay. If on an analysis of the relevant rules, orders, nature of duties, functions, measure of responsibility, and educational qualifications required for the relevant posts, the court finds that the classification made by the State in giving different treatment to the two classes of employees is founded on rational basis having nexus with the objects sought to be achieved, the classification must be upheld. Principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable among equals, it cannot be applied to unequals. Relief to an aggrieved person seeking to enforce the principles of equal pay for equal work can be granted only after it is demonstrated before the court that invidious discrimination is practised by the State in prescribing two different scales for the two classes of employees without there being any reasonable classification for the same. If the aggrieved employees fail to demonstrate discrimination, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be enforced by court in abstract. The question what scale should be provided to a particular class of service must be left to the executive and only when Page 17 of 31 HC-NIC Page 17 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT discrimination is practised amongst the equals, the court should intervene to undo the wrong, and to ensure equality among the similarly placed employees. The court however cannot prescribe equal scales of pay for different class of employees."
25. Yet again in Shyam Babu Verma (supra), N.P. Singh, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench observed :
"...The nature of work may be more or less the same but scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to them..."
26. True it may be that when recommendations are made by a Pay Commission, evaluation of job must be held to have been made but the same by itself may not be a ground to enforce the recommendations by issuing a writ of or in the nature of mandamus although the State did not accept the same in toto and made rules to the contrary by evolving a policy decision which cannot be said to arbitrary or discriminatory. "
15. In the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association, 2003(6) SCC 250, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paras-11 and 13 observed as under;
"11. There can be no denial of the legal position that decision of expert bodies like the Pay Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise requiring going into various aspects of the posts held in various services and nature of the duties of the employees.
16. In the case of Asif Hameed vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & ors., AIR 1989 SC 1899, the Supreme Court, in Page 18 of 31 HC-NIC Page 18 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT para-19, held as under;
"19.When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with Law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitu- tion and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coor- dinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature of executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers. "
17. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. Berger Paints India Ltd., AIR 1990 SC 1277, the Supreme Court, in paras-57 and 58, held as under;
"57 Judicial review is not concerned with matters of economic policy. The Court does not substitute its Judgement for that of the legislature or its agents as to matters within the province of either. The Court does not supplant the "feel of the expert" by its own views. When the legislature acts Within the sphere of its authority and delegates power to an agent, it may empower the agent to make findings of fact which are conclusive provided such findings satisfy the test of reasonableness. In all such cases, judicial inquiry is confined to the question Whether the findings of fact are reasonably based on evidence and whether such findings are consistent with the laws of the land. As stated by Jagannatha Shetty, J . in Gupta Sugar Works :
"the court does not act like a chartered accountant nor acts like an income tax officer. The court is not concerned with any individual case or any particular problem. The court only examines Whether the price determined was with due regard to considerations Page 19 of 31 HC-NIC Page 19 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT provided by the statute. And whether extraneous matters have been excluded from determination."
58 Price fixation is not within the province of the courts. Judicial function in respect of such matters is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis for the conclusions reached by the concerned authority. As stated by Justice Cardozo in Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company V/s. United States of America (1933) 292 US 282-: 78 Law ed 1260, :
"The structure of a rate schedule calls in peculiar measure for the use of that enlightened Judgement which the Commission by training and experience is qualified to form ..... It is not the province of a court to absorb this function to itself... The judicial function is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis for the conclusions approved by the administrative body".
18. In Government of West Bengal v. Tarun Kumar Roy, (2004)1 SCC 347, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held as under :
"14. Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India envisages the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The said doctrine, however, does not contemplate that only because the nature of the work is same, irrespective of an educational qualification or irrespective of their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations the said doctrine would be automatically applied. The holders of a higher educational qualification can be treated as a separate class. Such classification, it is trite, is reasonable. Employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualification can, thus, be treated differently."
The Court further opined that in a case where the employees do not hold the essential educational qualifications, they cannot claim parity in the scale of pay on the ground of equality stating :
"30. The respondents are merely graduates in Science. They do not have the requisite technical qualification.Page 20 of 31
HC-NIC Page 20 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Only because they are graduates, they cannot, in our opinion, claim equality with the holders of diploma in Engineering. If any relief is granted by this court to the respondents on the aforementioned, ground, the same will be in contravention of the statutory rules. It is trite that this court even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily grant such a relief which would be in violation of a statutory provision."
19. In Government of West Bengal (supra), the Court, upon noticing a large number of decisions, observed thus :
"25. In a case of this nature, the courts are required to determine the issue having regard to larger public interest. It is one thing to say that in a given case the High Court or this Court may not exercise an equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, but it is another thing to say that the courts shall grant a relief to a party only on the ground that a contention which is otherwise valid would not be raised on the ground that the same was not done in earlier proceedings.
28. In the aforementioned situation, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court manifestly erred in refusing to consider the contentions of the appellants on their own merit, particularly, when the question as regards difference in the grant of scale of pay on the ground of different educational qualification stands concluded by a judgment of this Court in Debdas Kumar (1991 AIR SCW
704). If the judgment of Debdas Kumar is to be followed a finding of fact was required to be arrived at that they are similarly situated to the case of Debdas Kumar which in turn would mean that they are also holders of diploma in Engineering. They admittedly being not, the contention of the appellants could not be rejected. Non-filing of an appeal, in any event, would not be a ground for refusing to consider a matter on its own merits. (See State of Maharashtra v. Digambar) (1995 AIR SCW 3116)
20 In State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996)11 SCC 77, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Articles Page 21 of 31 HC-NIC Page 21 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT 39(d), 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same organisation. There may be differences in educational or technical qualifications, which may have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service, which may justify differences in pay scales on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that good performances can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job.
21. In State of Haryana and Anr. v. Tilak Raj and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2658, the Supreme Court held as under :-
"11.To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear-cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination.
12. Equal pay for equal work" is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesome identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula ."
22. In Harbans Lal and Ors. v. State of Himachal Page 22 of 31 HC-NIC Page 22 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Pradesh and Ors., (1989) 4 SCC 459, the Supreme Court considered a similar issue and observed that while determining the issue of parity in pay, large number of considerations and various dimensions of the job are required to be taken up by the courts. The accuracy required by the job and the dexterity it entails may differ from job to job. It cannot be evaluated by the mere averments in the self-serving affidavits or counter affidavits of the parties. It must be left to be evaluated and determined by expert body. The Supreme Court further held as under :
"The discrimination complained of must be within the same establishment owned by the same management. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different management, or even in establishments in different geographical locations though owned by the same master. Unless it is shown that there is a discrimination amongst the same set of employees by the same master in the same establishment, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be enforced...."
23. In Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1256, the Supreme Court dealt with an issue of pay parity between Speech Therapists and Audiologists and held that merely because Speech Therapists perform similar duties and functions in other institutions, are paid higher pay-scales is no good ground to accept the petitioner's claim for equal pay. There may be difference in educational qualifications, quality and volume of work required to be performed by the hearing therapists in other institutions. The person claiming parity must sufficiently produce material before the Court to adjudicate upon such a complicated issue of factual determination. More so, if the Page 23 of 31 HC-NIC Page 23 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT employer is not the same, the principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable.
It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he had been discriminated against, as the question of parity has to be decided on consideration of various facts and statutory rules etc. The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. The Court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/ wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on person claiming such right. (Vide U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Sant Raj Singh and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2296 : (2006 AIR SCW 3013); Union of India and Anr. v. Mahajabeen Akhtar, AIR 2008 SC 435 : (2007 AIR SCW 7204); Union of India and Ors. v. Dineshan K.K., AIR 2008 SC 1026 : (2008 AIR SCW 591); Union of India and Ors. v. Hiranmoy Sen and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 630 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1395 : 2007 AIR SCW 7025); Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1177); Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Aziz Ahmad, (2009) 2 SCC 606; and State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635) : (2010 Page 24 of 31 HC-NIC Page 24 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT AIR SCW 2748).
24. The Supreme Court while deciding a similar issue in State of West Bengal and Anr. v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 225, held as under :
"18. The evaluation of duties and responsibilities of different posts and determination of the pay scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried out by expert bodies. Granting parity in pay scale depends upon comparative job evaluation and equation of posts.
19. The principle 'equal pay for equal work' is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It is dependent on various factors such as educational qualifications, nature of the jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment, etc. Comparison merely based on designation of posts is misconceived. Courts should approach such with restraint and interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees.
20. The burden to prove disparity is on the employees claiming parity." (See also State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 219 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 465 : 2008 AIR SCW 4279)).
25. In Union of India and Anr. v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850, the Supreme Court accepted the factors laid down by the Committee of Chief Secretaries which was constituted for settling the disputes regarding equation of posts arising out of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, wherein the following four factors had been held to be determinative of the issue of equivalence of posts:-
Page 25 of 31HC-NIC Page 25 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT
1. The nature and duties of a post;
2. The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
3. The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and
4.The salary of the post.
26. In The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v.
Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1990; and Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narain Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha, AIR 1986 SC 1200, a similar view has been reiterated observing that equal status and nature and responsibilities of the duties attached to the two posts have to be taken into consideration for equivalence of the post.
27. Similar view has been reiterated in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., AIR 1974 SC 555; and Sub- Inspector Rooplal and Anr. v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 594, wherein the Supreme Court following the earlier judgment in P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850, held that the salary of the post alone may not be a determining factor, the other three criterion should also be fulfilled.
28. In Union of India and Ors. v. S.L. Dutta and Anr., AIR 1991 SC 363; Union of India and Ors. v. N.Y. Apte and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2651; State of U.P. and Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 19; and Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 168, the Supreme Court held that whether the determination of two posts are equal or not, Page 26 of 31 HC-NIC Page 26 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT is a job of the Expert Committee and the court should not be interfered with it unless the decision of the Committee is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary or made on extraneous considerations. More so, it is an executive function to fix the service conditions etc. and lies within the exclusive domain of the rule making authority. (See also T. Venkateswarulu v. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and Ors., AIR 2009 SC 763)
29. In S.C. Chandra and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 3021, the Supreme Court held :
"In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups......"
30. In S.P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1882, the Supreme Court held as under :
"......it is not open to the court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong. This was a matter exclusively within the province of the Central Government. Perhaps the only question the court can enquire into is whether the four principles cited above had been properly taken into account. This is the narrow and limited field within which the supervisory jurisdiction of the court can operate".
31. It is a settled legal proposition that it is not always impermissible to provide two different pay-scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection based on merit with due regard to experience and seniority. (Vide J.P. Chaurasia (AIR 1989 SC Page 27 of 31 HC-NIC Page 27 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT
19) (Supra) and Meva Ram Kanojia (AIR 1989 SC 1256). "Non- uniformities would not in all events violate Article 14." Thus, a mere difference does not always amount to discrimination. (Vide Madhu Kishwar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1864; Associate Banks Officers' Association v. State Bank of India and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 32; and Official Liquidator, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1177.
32. In Steel Authority of India Limited and others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011)11 SCC 122, the Supreme Court held as under :
In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity, must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal between the concerned posts. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties.
The onus to establish the discrimination by the employer lies on the person claiming the parity of pay. The expert committee has to decide such issues, as the fixation of pay scales etc. falls within the exclusive domain of the executive. So long as the value judgment of those who are responsible for administration i.e. service conditions etc., is found to be bona fide, reasonable, and on intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus of objective of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to Page 28 of 31 HC-NIC Page 28 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT discrimination. It is not prohibited in law to have two grades of posts in the same cadre. Thus, the nomenclature of a post may not be the sole determinative factor. The courts in exercise of their limited power of judicial review can only examine whether the decision of the State authorities is rational and just or prejudicial to a particular set of employees. The court has to keep in mind that a mere difference in service conditions does not amount to discrimination. Unless there is complete and wholesale/wholesome identity between the two posts they should not be treated as equivalent and the Court should avoid applying the principle of equal pay for equal work.
33. This Court fairly concedes to the fact that it is not equipped with the expertise to decide as to whether the post of the writ applicant, in all respect, is comparable with the cadre of the DIG. However, on overall consideration of the matter, a prima facie case could be said to have been made out by the writ applicant, but I am of the view that it would be appropriate to ask the State Government to reexamine the entire case in light of the relevant details, facts, data and the documents elaborated by the writ applicant.
34. It is now well settled that the Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the pay-scales without proper reasons and should be conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not the function of the Court, it is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay-scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, would put forward their claims on the basis of such a change. Interfering with the prescribed pay-scales is a serious matter. However, the Page 29 of 31 HC-NIC Page 29 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT question is, whether the Government was justified in not accepting the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Committee, and to what extent such recommendations are binding to the State Government.
35. The pay commissions are constituted for evaluating the duties and functions of the employees and the nature thereof vis-a-vis the educational qualifications required therefor. Although the pay commission is considered to be an expert body, yet, the State, in its wisdom and in furtherance of a valid policy decision may, or may not accept its recommendations. However, the State Government is not expected to brush aside the recommendations lightly and without assigning any reasons for the same. The recommendations of an expert body do carry some weight and sanctity. The decision of the State Government in not accepting the recommendations of the pay commission should not be an eyewash. It should appear from the materials on record that a proper application of mind was there by the Committee constituted by the Government to look into the recommendations and after thorough examination, the Committee has taken the decision. In the case on hand, I am not satisfied or rather convinced with the reasons assigned for not accepting the recommendations of the pay commission. In such circumstances, I have thought fit to ask the State Government to re-look into the matter having regard to the materials on record, which is quite voluminous.
36. This writ application is disposed of with the following directions;
36.1 The State-respondents are directed to take up the case Page 30 of 31 HC-NIC Page 30 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017 C/SCA/11063/2009 CAV JUDGMENT of the writ applicants for reconsideration as regards the pay scale.
36.2 The State-respondents shall reexamine the case of the writ applicants and the claim in details by taking into consideration their posts, duties and the functions. It shall be open for the State Government to seek the opinion of the experts, once again, if necessary, in this regard. Having regard to the fact that this petition is of the year 2009, and more than two decades have passed, the competent authority shall take up the issue as expeditiously as possible and see to it that an appropriate fresh decision is taken within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order. If the writ applicants want to supply any other material in addition to what has been noted in this judgment, then they may do so within a period of one month from today. Such additional material, if any, shall be adduced before the State Government.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Vahid Page 31 of 31 HC-NIC Page 31 of 31 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:10:59 IST 2017