Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board And ... vs Kartar Singh And Others on 8 August, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1364 of 2011 (O&M) and connected appeals
Date of Decision: August 8, 2011
Punjab State Electricity Board and others
...Appellants
Versus
Kartar Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
JUSTICE M.M KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant(s).
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
M.M KUMAR, J.
1. This order shall dispose of a set of appeals* which have been preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for brevity, 'the Board') along with its officers under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the common judgment dated 17.12.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Single Judge the circular, dated 11.11.1988, issued by the appellant-Board granted pay scale to the work charged employees equivalent to the pay scale of their counter parts working on regular basis. Accordingly, the work-charge employees were released the pay scales equal to their counterparts working on the regular establishment of the appellant-Board w.e.f 1.1.1986.
2. The aforesaid benefits were also extended by the LPA No. 1364 of 2011 (O&M) 2 and connected appeals subsequent circular, dated 26.4.1990, by further revising the pay scales. However, the dispute arose after issuance of circular dated 3.10.1990 (P-2) and the appellant-Board refused to grant equivalent revision to the work-charge employees with effect from 1.1.1986, which has been given to the regular employees working on the corresponding posts. Eventually, the appellant-Board rejected the plea of the work-charge employees-writ petitioner-respondent(s) on 17.4.2002. They approached this Court with the grievance that once the work-charge employees have been granted the pay scales equivalent to their counterparts working on the regular establishment of the appellant-Board then there is no possibility of denying the same as and when subsequently revision of pay scales had taken place. Learned Single Judge quashed the impugned orders dated 12.10.1994 and 17.4.2002 and granted the benefit to the work-charge employees, who have filed various writ petitions, by observing as under:
" It emerges from the contents of various notifications/circulars referred to by the parties that vide the first notification dated 11.11.1988, the Board had categorically decided that "the employees working on work-charged establishment would be entitled to the revised scales of pay as applicable to the regular employees where corresponding posts/scales of pay of regular establishment exists.........". It was so reiterated vide circular dated 26.4.1990 (Annexure P-1) also and pursuant thereto only that the work-charged employees like the petitioners were kept at par their regular LPA No. 1364 of 2011 (O&M) 3 and connected appeals counter-parts in the matter of grant of revised pay scale(s). The question which arises for consideration, is as to whether or not the petitioners were also entitled to further improved pay scales granted retrospectively vide subsequent order dated 3.10.1990 (Annexure P-2)?
In my considered view, the subsequent circular/order dated 3.10.1990 nowhere suggests any conscious decision for not granting the improved pay scales to the work-charged employees by maintaining parity with their regular counter-parts. I say so for the reason that the subsequent circular/order dated 3.10.1990 is "in continuation to the previous circulars issued by the Board from time to time" and "is meant to further revising the scales of pay" of the categories of the employees mentioned therein, w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The circular does not restrict the benefit of further revision qua the regular employees only. Once the Board vide its previous decisions dated 11.11.1988 and 26.4.1990, had consciously brought parity between the pay scale(s) of work-charged employees and their regular counter-parts, the work-charged employees would be, as a matter of right, entitled to the further revision, if any, granted to the regular employees unless such a benefit is expressly denied to them by way of a reasonable classification within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No such conscious decision has been placed on record by the respondents." LPA No. 1364 of 2011 (O&M) 4
and connected appeals
3. The learned Single Judge has further concluded that if an authority has taken a conscious decision to grant the pay scales of a 'regular employee' to his 'work-charged counter-part', then there could be no justification in law for reduction of the pay scales of the work-charged employees on the artificial distinction based upon their status as regular or work-charged employees. In that regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Dharam Singh and others, others, 2008 (1) SCT 565 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab v. Dr. Gautam Mahajan, Mahajan, 1994 (1) SCT 776.
776
4. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant- Board has contested the finding of the learned Single Judge by urging that the work-charge employees cannot claim the benefit of revision of pay scales as a matter of right. In that regard he has again placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Jagjiwan Ram and others (Civil Appeal No. 890 of 2009, 2009, decided on 12.2.2009) 12.2.2009).
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Board at length and perused the paper book with his able assistance. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Single Judge has distinguished the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jagjiwan Ram (supra) by holding that the work-charge employees may not be able to claim parity of pay scale with their counterparts working on regular basis as a matter of right. But when the pay scales have been granted by LPA No. 1364 of 2011 (O&M) 5 and connected appeals the employer himself and parity has been accorded by a conscious decision then such a claim could be made as a matter of right. In other words, the judgment in Jagjiwan Ram's case (s (supra) support the proposition that a work-charged employee cannot claim pay scale equivalent to his counterparts working on the regular establishment in the absence of any decision of the employer. Therefore, the present case rests entirely on different footing as has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge. The ratio of the judgment in Jagjiwan Ram's case (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case.
6. Moreover, the matter is no longer res integra. A similar controversy came up for consideration of Hon'lbe the Supreme Court in the case of Director General (Works), C.P.W.D. v. Ashok Kumar and others, others, (1999) 9 SCC 167.
167 In that case, in pursuance to the decision earlier rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh v. Engineer-
Engineer-in-
in-Chief, CPWD, CPWD, (1986) (1986) 1 SCC 639, 639 the appellants have been paying salary to the daily-rated employees in the regular scale of pay. However, the dispute confining to the period from the date of employment till 31.3.1987 i.e. the period prior to the date of decision in Surinder Singh's case (supra) again cropped up before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Their Lordships' of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by making the following observations in para 3:
"3. Since in the instant case the appellant himself had implemented the decision of this Court in Surinder Singh case and had been paying salary to the respondents in the regular scale of pay in which the employees of the LPA No. 1364 of 2011 (O&M) 6 and connected appeals work-charged establishment are being paid it cannot be urged today that the respondents' right to receive salary in the regular scale of pay should first be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court before they are given the salary in the regular scale of pay in which the employees of the work-charged establishment are being paid. We are not prepared to accept the said argument made by learned counsel. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. The appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
7. As a sequel of the above discussion, we do not find any ground for admission of these appeals. There is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected appeals.
(M.M KUMAR)
JUDGE
(GURDEV SINGH)
August 8, 2011 JUDGE
ritu/Pkapoor
*
Sr. Case No. Title
No.
1. LPA No. 1364 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Kartar singh and others
LPA No. 1364 of 2011 (O&M) 7
and connected appeals
2. LPA No. 1365 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Tirath Bahadur Bhandari and others
3. LPA No. 1366 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Ram Kishan and others
4. LPA No. 1367 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Ranjit Singh and others
5. LPA No. 1368 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Harsh Kumar and others
6. LPA No. 1369 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Sukhwinder Singh and others
7. LPA No. 1370 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Kulwant Singh and others
8. LPA No. 1373 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Paramjit Kaur
9. LPA No. 1374 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Gursewak Singh and others
10. LPA No. 1375 Punjab State Electricity Board and others v.
of 2011 Swaran Singh and others
(M.M KUMAR)
JUDGE
(GURDEV SINGH)
August 8, 2011 JUDGE
ritu/Pkapoor