Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramvir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 January, 2014
C.W.P. No.15735 of 1993 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.15735 of 1993.
Decided on:-January 10, 2014.
Paramvir Singh and others .........Petitioners.
Versus
State of Punjab and others .........Respondents.
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.
*****
Argued by:- Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J The petitioners, who were employees of Bicycle and Sewing Machine Research & Development Centre, Ludhiana (for short, 'the Centre'), by way of this writ petition, have sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them pay scale of Rs.1,800- 3,200 with effect from the dates of their respective dates of appointment on the plea that the draftsmen working with the State of Punjab had been granted the said pay scale.
2. Parity in the pay scale is sought by the petitioners-draftsmen averring that the respondent/Centre is a subsidiary of the Industries Department, Punjab and, thus, should not be treated differently in the matter of grant of pay scale.
Yag Dutt 2014.01.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.15735 of 1993 -2-3. Stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the pay scale of draftsmen of the State of Punjab was not automatically applicable to this Centre and further that there is no parity of posts held by the petitioners and others working in the Centre with the posts in other departments of the State of Punjab. Dismissal of the petition has been sought.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the paper book.
5. It is a conceded fact that the Centre is a Society working in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme, where management and affairs of the Society have been entrusted to its Governing Council of which there are 11 members. It is also not disputed that there is no parity of posts of the Centre with the posts of the other departments of the State of Punjab. Even power of creation of posts and fixation of their pay scales completely vests in the Governing Council of the Society without making any reference to the Government.
6. It is to be distinctly noticed that the Governing Council is consisting of official and non-official members including representatives of United Nations Development Programme as also of Director of Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Society is not a subsidiary of the Industries Department of the State of Punjab.
7. The sole question to be answered in this writ petition is as to whether the pay scales available to employees of the State of Punjab would be applicable to the petitioners who are employees of this Centre or not?
8. Perusal of the paper book reveals that the Governing Council of the Centre in its meeting held on 8.3.1984 had created posts of draftsmen even in the pay scale of Rs.480-800. It is a conceded fact by the petitioners that out of the sanctioned posts, some draftsmen were recruited in the pay Yag Dutt 2014.01.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.15735 of 1993 -3- scale of Rs.570-1,080 whereas others were in the pay scale of Rs.620-1,200. Draftsmen working with the Centre were drawing different pay scales according to their work profile and terms of their appointment which corresponded to the decisions of the Governing Council taken in its different meetings, when different posts of draftsmen were created. Though there were draftsmen working in the drawing office, yet, others were working as technical draftsmen and still others were working as design draftsmen.
9. It is thus made out that the draftsmen working in the Centre were enjoying different pay scales as per their terms of appointment and work profile assigned to them. Merely because every draftsman working with the Centre was loosely referred to with the nomenclature of 'draftsman' but the fact is that there were different posts with different nomenclatures, different qualifications and experiences required of such posts and accordingly were having different work profile to discharge.
10. To demonstrate, clue is being taken from Annexure P-1 of the petition. Annexure P-1 is an advertisement of the Centre which appeared in a daily called 'The Tribune' on May 16, 1986, relevant portion whereof for ready reference is appended as below:
"BICYCLE & SEWING MACHINE R & D CENRE, LUDHIANA.
REQUIRE The following staff for UNDP/UNIDO Project set up at Ludhiana.
xxx xxx
10. TECHNICAL DRAFTSMEN :
In the pay scale of Rs.620-1200 (starting emoluments Rs.1299.10). Qualification: Diploma in Mech. Engg. in Ist Div. with 2 years experience as Design Draftsman. He should be able to design parts Tools independently.Yag Dutt 2014.01.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.15735 of 1993 -4-
xxx xxx
Sd/-
Amarjit Singh, IAS, Director of
Industries, Punjab and Chairman,
Governing Council."
11. In short, for many posts of technical draftsmen, different educational qualification as also experience was required. It has not been disputed that education qualification and experience for manning post of a draftsman in drawing office are entirely different from the posts of technical draftsman who were recruited to design bicycle and sewing machines in the Centre. Merely because draftsmen in various departments of Government of Punjab were enjoying pay scale of Rs.1,500-2,640 which was revised to Rs.1,800-3,200 on 24.6.1991 (Annexure P-5) would not ipso facto entitle the petitioners for release of such pay scale. Stand of the respondents in this context, is available in para 12 of the written statement furnished by respondent No.3 and is reproduced as below:
"Para 12 of the writ petition as stated is wrong and denied. The true position is that the posts of Draftsmen have been created in different wings of the Centre, like Technical Draftsman, Design Draftsman etc. and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim equality of pay scale merely because they happened to be Draftsmen even though they are appointed against the posts carrying different pay scales. It is, therefore, wrong and denied that the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200. It is wrong and vehemently denied that a pick & choose method has been adopted for granting of pay scale of Rs.1800-3200. The decision of the Governing Council was very clear to the effect that Draftsmen working in the pay scale of Rs.570-1080 and above, were to be given the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 and those working in the pay scale of Rs.480-800 were to be given the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100."
12. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure P-7 whereby draftsmen working in the Centre pursuant to decision of 20th Yag Dutt 2014.01.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.15735 of 1993 -5- meeting of the Governing Council held on 27.2.1993 had been granted pay scale of Rs.1,800-3,200 to him.
13. Perusal of the paper book reveals that even the Governing Council of the Centre had revised their pay scales from time to time but no parity among the posts had been pronounced by the Centre to the Governing Council of the State of Punjab.
14. Plea of the petitioners that draftsmen working in the Centre have their joint cadre and joint seniority and are performing the same kind of duties, is a misnomer. It has already been seen that neither the work profile nor the role orientation and responsibilities nor even the terms and conditions of their employment inter-se with the Centre are the same. Rather, these are different, set apart and do not have any parity to be recognized among them all.
15. From the paper book itself, it is clear that different pay scales were given to the different draftsmen working on different posts carrying different nomenclature and different work profile though they all were commonly known as draftsmen and had been working in this Centre itself. From the own documents of the petitioners, it transpires that petitioner No.1 vide Annexure P-3 was appointed as a draftsman on 3.2.1988 in the pay scale of Rs.480-800 initially for a period of one year. One Roop Singh on 16.7.1986 vide Annexure P-4 had been offered the post of draftsman in the pay scale of Rs.570-1,080. In Annexure P-6 dated 30.8.1993 of the petitioners, the Centre makes the matter even further clear that the Governing Council of the Centre had decided to give revised pay scale of Rs.1,200-2,100 to the persons holding the posts of draftsmen, whereas pay scale of Rs.570-1,080 was raised to Rs.1,800-3,200.
16. In the backdrop of details given in earlier part of this judgment, it is evident that different pay scales were being held by different category of Yag Dutt 2014.01.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.15735 of 1993 -6- persons and clamour of the petitioners and few of their associates against such difference is inconsequential. Their assertion (Annexure P-9) that they were being discriminated, thus is misfounded. Consistent claim of the respondents that posts held by the petitioners were created in the pay scale of Rs.480-800 which scale was later revised to pay scale of Rs.1,200-2,100. In short, there cannot be automatic and ipso facto applicability of scales and no such parameters based on parity could thus be fixed.
17. Till the time, the scales of pay of the Government of Punjab are adopted by the Governing Council of the respondent-Centre, those would not become applicable. Relevant stand of respondent No.3 contained in para 7 of the written statement is as below:
"In reply to para 7 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the pay scales of the Punjab Government are not automatically made applicable to the Research and Development Centre for Bicycle and Sewing Machines, as it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is governed by the Governing Council. Till the time the scales are adopted by the Governing Council and made applicable to its employees, the revision of pay scales by the State Government is of no consequence. Therefore, the averments made in para 7 of the writ petition are not relevant to the facts of the present case."
18. When it is a conceded fact that the petitioners were appointed in the pay scale of Rs.480-800 whereas two other grades of draftsmen viz. Rs.570-1,080 and Rs.620-1,200 were available for other draftsmen of the Centre, all cannot be treated alike and thus could not have been given pay scale of Rs.620-1,200, which later was even revised.
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Government of West Bengal Versus Tarun K. Roy and others 2004 (1) S.C.T. 78 explaining the entire concept has summed up that holders of different qualifications cannot be considered equals and when different pay scales have been maintained for different posts and when duties and functions of two such posts are also different, neither doctrine of equal work nor of equal pay applies. In Hukum Yag Dutt 2014.01.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.15735 of 1993 -7- Chand Gupta Versus Director General, ICAR and others 2013 AIR (SC) 547, it has further been held that prescription of different pay scales does not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work. It was held that merely because any two posts at different levels get the same nomenclature, would not necessarily require that the pay scales of the said posts should also be the same. In this authority, in para 20, it was observed as under:
"We are also not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant that there can be no distinction in the pay scales between the employees working at Headquarters and the employees working at the institutional level. It is a matter of record that the employees working at Headquarters are governed by a completely different set of rules. Even the hierarchy of the posts and the channels of promotion are different. Also, merely because any two posts at the Headquarters and the institutional level have the same nomenclature, would not necessarily require that the pay scales on the two posts should also be the same. In our opinion, the prescription of two different pay scales would not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work. Such action would not be arbitrary or violate Articles 14, 16 and 39D of the Constitution of India. It is for the employer to categorize the posts and to prescribe the duties of each post. There can not be any straitjacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale. Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and quality of the duties performed and the responsibilities shouldered by the incumbents on different posts. Even though, the two posts may be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to the necessary inference that the posts are identical in every manner. These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer or the Pay Commission. Neither the Central Administrative Tribunal nor a Writ Court would normally venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts. The Tribunal or the Writ Court would lack the necessary expertise undertake the complex exercise of equation of posts or the pay scales."
20. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the given set of facts of this case where not only qualifications but even Yag Dutt 2014.01.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No.15735 of 1993 -8- requirement of experience for different job profiles of draftsmen were required, authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioner reported as Rajinder Pal Gautam and others Versus State of Punjab and others 2008 (3) S.C.T. 753 (P&H) is not applicable. In the cited authority, pay scales of several posts since 1969 were linked together and the category of pump operators alone was picked up for different pay scales which was held to be hostile discrimination. It was further mentioned that such segregation would not stand the test of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, in the present case, not only the qualification and experience for different category of draftsmen but even their job profile and pay scales are different right from the very beginning as has already been noticed that the petitioners have accepted their appointments in the pay scales of Rs.480-800 and are holding different qualifications as also different job profiles as compared to other draftsmen; there is no parity. No parity can even be drawn with regard to pay scales. This view has also been taken by this Court in CWP No.14171 of 1995 decided on 21.12.2013 titled Jagan Nath Singla and others Vs. State of Punjab and another.
21. In view of the above discussion, the petition being without any merit is dismissed.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge January 10, 2014 'Yag Dutt'
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Yag Dutt 2014.01.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document