Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Verma & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 20 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 1057 of 2013.
Decided on: 20.5.2015.
Suresh Kumar Verma & ors. ......Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ......Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. M.A.Khan, Addl. AG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
The petitioners No. 1 & 2 filed OA No. 2325 of 1999 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. It was transferred to this Court and assigned CWP(T) No. 6010 of 2008. It was also decided on 16.6.2010. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners on the analogy of Bimal Krishan Sharma for releasing them the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and 20.5.1983. Since the petitioners No. 1 & 2 were not granted the pay scale, they approached this Court alongwith the petitioners No. 3 & 4 for the refressal of their grievance. It has come in the reply that the pay of petitioners No. 1 & 2 has been re-fixed by two separate Office Orders dated 6.9.2012 and 5.9.2013 but the pay of petitioners No. 3 & 4 has not been re-fixed, though they were at par with petitioners No. 1 & 2.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:13:33 :::HCHP 22. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. AG was directed to seek .
instructions vide order dated 8.5.2015 as to why the case of petitioners No. 3 & 4 has not been considered on the analogy of petitioners No. 1 & 2. The instructions received from the Office of Director, Health Services, H.P. dated 14.5.2015 have been placed on record by the learned Addl. Advocate General. The only reason assigned for not re-fixing the pay of respondents No. 3 & 4 is that they were not parties in CWP(T) No. 6010 of 2008, which was decided on 16.6.2010.
3. The petitioners No. 3 & 4 were at par with petitioners No. 1 & 2, whose pay has been re-fixed. They were also appointed as Artists-cum-
Photographers alongwith petitioners No. 1 & 2.
4. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others versus C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747 have held that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly irrespective of the fact that only one person has approached the court. Their Lordships have held as under:
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well-settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:13:33 :::HCHP 3 Category I Post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to .
adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to."
5. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and ors. Vrs. Satya Brata Chowdhury and ors., reported in (2008) 16 SCC 383, have held that the differential treatment to similarly situated employees is invalid. Their lordships have held as under:
"18. We may, at the outset, notice that the only contention raised by the appellant before the Tribunal, as also before the High Court, was that the recruitment Procedure in the Eastern Railway Administration was different for the Time-keepers. It has been held not to be so. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.7.1991 in TA No.1585 of 1986 has been noticed by us. Therein, the Tribunal directed the workmen of the workshops at Liluah and elsewhere to be treated at par with their counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and Chittaranjan locomotive workshop. It was, therefore, impermissible for the appellant to treat the workers similarly situated, differently. They were to be treated as workers under the Factories Act. Only because some overtime allowance became payable to them or a separate seniority list was maintained or a cadre for the said workers on workshop basis was constituted, the same by itself, in our opinion did not authorize the Eastern Railway Administration to discriminate the workers working in one workshop with the workers working in the other."
(Emphasis supplied) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:13:33 :::HCHP 4
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are .
directed to re-fix the pay of petitioners No. 3 & 4 also at par with petitioners No. 1 & 2 as per Annexure R-2/1 dated 6.9.2013 and 5.9.2013, within a period of six weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
May 20, 2015, ( Rajiv Sharma ),
(karan) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:13:33 :::HCHP