Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Chand & Another vs State Of Punjab & Others on 26 September, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6429 of 1996
Date of Decision : 26.09.2013
Mehar Chand & another
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...... Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Singh Sethi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
****
SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have questioned the equation of pay scale of Superintendent Grade-II with Traffic Manager in the Transport Department, as according to them, the post of Superintendent being a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Traffic Manager, the action of the respondents in equating their pay scales amounts to equality amongst unequals. In a way, the petitioners also seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to place Traffic Managers in a higher pay scale.
2. The respondents have in their written statement contested the petitioners' claim, as according to them, the prescription of pay scale for a post is a matter of administrative policy and the same have been prescribed after due deliberations. It is maintained that even on promotion where the feeder post and the promotional posts are in the same pay scale, the Satyawan promotee gets higher emoluments in view of Rule 8(3)(a) of the Punjab 2013.11.11 11:19 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 6429 of 1996 2 Civil Services(Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, which reads as follows :-
"Where a Government employee is appointed or promoted to a higher post involving assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the lower post held by him and the time scales of both the higher and the lower posts are the same or identical his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed by allowing him the benefit of increment(s) in terms of sub- rule (1) and the next increment in the scale of the higher post shall be allowed after the completion of twelve months qualifying service in that scale."
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The record perused.
4. Relying upon two decisions of this Court in (i) Sunder Lal Jain and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995(1) SLR 215 and (ii) judgment dated 14.3.1997 passed in CWP No. 15690 of 1995, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that retention of the petitioners in the pay scale drawn by them as Superintendents, despite their promotion as Traffic Managers, is illegal and violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. As against it, Mr. Amit Singh Sethi, learned Addl. A.G., Punjab, relied upon Rule 8(3)(a) ibid and submits that since this Court in the cited decisions did not deal with a provision like the Rule reproduced above, those decisions are distinguishable and do not advance the petitioners' claim.
6. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, we are of the view that the expression 'promotion' does not necessarily mean and cannot be construed upgradation in the pay scale. Satyawan Promotion can broadly be of two types i.e. (i) enhancement in the pay scale 2013.11.11 11:19 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 6429 of 1996 3 and status and (ii) enhancement in the rank and status only. In both eventuality, the employee shall stand promoted, notwithstanding the fact that in the later situation he may not get higher pay scale. The promotion of an employee undoubtedly cannot work to disadvantage, namely, the emoluments drawn by him while serving in the feeder cadre cannot be reduced on the pretext of promotion. It is, however, not an essential condition of service that on promotion an employee must always be placed in higher pay scale. In fact Rule 4.4(c)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services, Vol.
I, Part-I provides as follows :-
"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. Provided that if a Government employee either-
(a) has previously held substantively or officiated in-
(i) the same post, or
(ii) a permanent post or temporary post on the same time-
scale, or
(iii) a permanent post other than a tenure post, or a temporary post (including a post in a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government) on an identical time- scale: or
(b) is appointed substantively to a tenure post on a time-
Satyawan 2013.11.11 11:19 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 6429 of 1996 4 scale identical with that of another tenure post which he has previously held substantively or in which he has previously officiated;
than proviso to rule 4.4(b) shall apply in the matter of the initial pay fixation of pay and counting of previous service for increment.
(ii) The provisions of sub-rule 2 of rule 4.14 shall also be applicable in any case where the initial pay is fixed under this clause. In cases, where a Government employee is, immediately before his promotion or appointment to a higher post, drawing pay at the maximum of the time scale of the lower post, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed in the same manner as provided in sub-clause (1) above."
(emphasis applied)
7. The provision in the statutory rules uniformly applicable to all services, thus, expressly deals with the situation where an employee is promoted to higher post carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance but in the same pay scale. His pay on such promotional post is required to be fixed at the stage next above his pay drawn by him on the lower post. In other words, he shall get one additional increment and the date of his annual increment shall also change i.e. on completion of 12 months' qualifying service from the date of such promotion. Such like promotee thus gets higher emoluments than what he has been drawing in the feeder cadre though he is not placed in a higher pay scale. To say it differently, the promotee employee gets higher rank and status as well as higher emoluments but not the higher pay scale. Since the import and construction of Rule 4.4(c)(i) of CSR or Rule 8.3(a) of Punjab Civil Services,1988 was not the subject matter of consideration in the cited decisions, the same are totally distinguishable and can not be applied to the Satyawan 2013.11.11 11:19 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 6429 of 1996 5 facts of the case in hand.
8. It is not the case of the petitioners that the benefit of Rule 4.4
(c) or 8(3)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services 1988 (Revised pay) Rules has not been extended to them.
9. Our above stated view is fortified by the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, (1994)5 SCC 392:-
"Promotion as understood under the service law jurisprudence means advancement in rank, grade or both. Promotion is always a step towards advancement to a higher position, grade or honour. Opting to come to a lower pay-scale or to a lower post cannot be considered a promotion, it is rather a demotion."
(emphasis applied)
10. For the reasons aforestated, the complaint of discrimination made by the petitioners in the matter of denial of higher pay scale on their promotion as Traffic Managers, merits rejection.
Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE (SURINDER GUPTA) JUDGE 26.09.2013 'Satyawan' Satyawan 2013.11.11 11:19 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh