Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Suresh Chander And Others on 15 January, 2013
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
CM No.3052 of 2012 and [1]
L.P.A.No.1150 of 2012 (O&M)
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CM No.3052 of 2012 and
L.P.A.No. 1150 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:15.1.2013
State of Haryana and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Suresh Chander and others ...Respondents
(2) L.P.A.No. 1402 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:15.1.2013
State of Haryana and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Prem Chand Mittal and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. B.S.Rana, Addl.A.G,Haryana.
Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate,with
Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate, for the respondents.
A.K.SIKRI, CJ. (Oral)
CM No.3052 of 2012
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 1070 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA No.1150 of 2012 (O&M) By this judgment, we shall be disposing of two appeals being CM No.3052 of 2012 and [2] L.P.A.No.1150 of 2012 (O&M) ***** LPA Nos.1150 & 1403 of 2012 as both are inter-connected.
The pay of Junior Engineers was re-fixed/revised on the implementation of 4th Pay Commission's recommendations which were enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Insofar as the Junior Engineers are concerned, pre-revised scale was `700-1250/- (time scale) and the 50% of these Junior Engineers on completion of 15 years of service were being placed in selection grade and pre-revised selection grade was `800- 1400/-. After the pay revision w.e.f. 01.1.1986, Junior Engineers in time scale were placed in pay scale of `1400-2000/-. These Junior Engineers felt agitated by this decision pointing out that even feeder post from which promotions i.e. Road Inspectors were made to the post of Junior Engineers was granted revised pay scale of `1400-2600/-, therefore, they could not have been placed in a lesser pay scale.
The anomaly committee went into this issue and found justification in the claim of the Junior Engineers in time scale . It, accordingly, fixed the revised pay scale of `1640-2900/-. In this process, the Junior Engineers who were having pre revised pay scale of `700- 1250/- were placed in the scale of `1640-2900/- and for selection grade revised pay scale was suggested as `2000-3200/-. Orders were passed giving effect to this recommendation of the anomaly committee but it was made effective w.e.f. 01.1.1992 and not 01.1.1986.
Many Junior Engineers approached different fora for claiming benefit w.e.f.01.1.1986 stating that it was anomaly which is accepted and removed and it has to be from the date when revision in the pay scale CM No.3052 of 2012 and [3] L.P.A.No.1150 of 2012 (O&M) ***** took place and not from the date from which the anomaly committee gave its report. Various pleas of such Junior Engineers were accepted giving a direction to the government to revise pay scale of `1640-2900/- and `2000-3200/-, respectively from 01.1.1986. Some of the judgments on this aspect are C.W.P.No. 16743 of 2001 titled as M.L.Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 11.4.2008; LPA No. 484 of 2012 titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Hoshiar Singh and another, decided on 0.8.11.2012 and LPA No.1626 of 2012 titled as The State of Haryana and others Vs. K.L.Mittal and others, decided on 11.1.2013.
We may record that the matter had gone to the Supreme Court. Even the SLP was also dismissed.
The respondents herein, who are employees of the State of Haryana, appointed as Junior Engineers claimed the same benefit by filing the writ petition in the year 2001. The writ petition has been allowed vide order dated 15.7.2009 and against that, present intra-court appeal being LPA No. 1150 of 2012 (O&M) is filed by the State of Haryana and others. The other writ petition filed by some Junior Engineers was CWP No. 15279 of 2008 which has also been allowed on 12.2.2009 and challenging that order, connected LPA No.1402 of 2012 (O&M) is filed.
Mr. Rana, learned counsel for the appellants-State argues that insofar as revision in pay scale granting pay scale of `1640-2900 is concerned, it was a case of anomaly and, therefore, the judgment has been implemented granting pay scale from 01.1.1986. According to him, however, insofar as selection grade is concerned, it was a benefit given CM No.3052 of 2012 and [4] L.P.A.No.1150 of 2012 (O&M) ***** and was not a case of anomaly and, therefore, it was within the power of the State to fix cut off date from 01.1.1992 .
We do not find any merit in this plea inasmuch as while granting selection grade as well, it was clearly a case of anomaly. This can be adequately demonstrated from the following definition:-
"The word "Anomaly" has been defined in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary to mean "abnormality; irregularity deviation from the regular arrangement, general rule or the usual method. Since this definition is not precise with reference to the pay scales and pay revision, it is pertinent to draw up a reasonable definition of what would constitute of an anomaly. It has been discussed by this Court in S.K.Bishnoi (supra) as a situation "where there is a loss of emoluments in the case of an employee on account of revision of pay scales". In this context, we agree with the legal position stated in the orders dated 23.4.2004 passed by the Government of Haryana as to what would constitute 'anomaly' and the five instances given therein which already have been extracted above".
In the case of The State of Haryana and others v.
K.L.Mittal and others, LPA No.1628 of 2012 decided on 11.01.2013, we have referred to five types of anomalies, which read as under:-
"a. When the pay scale are revised by the Government through a general pay revision notification for all its employees and the revised scales are not prescribed in respect of some posts/departments on account of inadvertent omission.
b. When the functional pay scale prescribed for a promotion post is lower than the functional pay scale of the feeder post.
c. When there is a loss of pay in the case of an employee on account of revision of pay scales. d. Where, on promotion, an employee draws lower emoluments than that he was drawing prior to his promotion.
e. Where the pay of senior employee gets fixed at a lower stage, as a consequence of pay revision qua a similar situated junior employee"CM No.3052 of 2012 and [5] L.P.A.No.1150 of 2012 (O&M)
***** However, the list is not exhaustive as another kind of anomaly, arising in this case, has also been noticed.
As stated above, it is accepted to the extent that time scale of `1400-2300 initially given was in a case of anomaly as the feeder cadre post was placed in higher pay scale of `1400-2600. This anomaly is removed by granting pay scale of `1640-2900. However, earlier there was a pay scale given as selection grade, as well, i.e. `800-1400 which was given revised scale of `2000-3200. If the contention of Mr.Rana is accepted, it would mean that from 01.1.1986 till 01.1.1992 time scale and selection grade would be the same but this argument cannot to be countenanced because if it is accepted that revised pay scale of `1640- 2900 is to be given in place of pay scale of `700-1250, obviously for the selection grade which was `800-1400, same scale i.e. `1640-2900 cannot be given. It is only on this aspect that the anomaly committee had recommended higher scale of `2000-3200. Therefore, it would not be a case of revision of pay scale for which date 01.1.1992 is fixed as cut off date, which is rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. The matter is also covered by many decisions mentioned above.
We, thus, do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.
(A.K.SIKRI)
CHIEFJUSTICE
15.1.2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN )
vinod* JUDGE