Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satya Parkash Verma & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 12 November, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.16850 of 1995 1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16850 of 1995
Date of decision:12.11.2014
Satya Parkash Verma and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Heena Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.4.1995 (Annexure P-11) and also the subsequent order dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure P-12), whereby while removing the anomaly in the revision of pay-scale of the petitioners, it was not removed from the date when it was created i.e. 1.1.1986 but from 1.4.1995, by passing a non-speaking order.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, respondents filed their respective written statements.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were working as Accounts Clerks in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- plus Rs.50/- as special pay. This pay-scale came to be revised for all the similarly situated employees, working in different Boards and Corporations of the respondent-State, to Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Vide Annexure P-4, a Committee was constituted for considering the issue CWP No.16850 of 1995 2 of revision of pay-scale of the Accounts Clerks. Consequently, the Committee considered the matter thoroughly and came to the conclusion in its meeting held on 9.12.1993 vide Annexure P-5, that the petitioners were entitled for revision of pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. However, respondent No.2 is stated to have suggested the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Thereafter, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation accorded its approval to the above-said revision of pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide their decision dated 17.3.1994 (Annexure P-8). He would next contend that surprisingly respondent No.2 vide impugned communication dated 24.4.1995 (Annexure P-11), decided to revise the pay-scale of Accounts Clerks from Rs.950- 1500/- plus Rs.50/- as special pay to Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 1.4.1995. Respondent-Corporation also did not put any resistance to the above-said decision of respondent No.2 and accordingly passed the consequential impugned order dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure P-12), thereby causing serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. He concluded by submitting that since action of the respondent-Corporation was arbitrary and discriminatory on the face of it, the impugned orders were not sustainable in law. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana and others, RSJ 1995 (1) 838 and order dated 24.7.2013 passed by this Court relying upon Ajmer Singh's case (supra) in CWP No.363 of 1995 (D.K.Gupta and others v. State of Haryana and others) and order dated 16.8.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.448 of 1994 (Prem Raj Giri and others v. The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another). Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by CWP No.16850 of 1995 3 allowing the present writ petition.
On the other hand, learned counsel for State submits that the primary reason with respondent No.2 for granting the benefit of revision of pay-scale to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.1995 instead of 1.1.1986 was that respondent No.3 was not enjoying good financial health. He further submits that it is the prerogative of the employer to grant the revised pay-scale to the different categories of employees from different dates and there was nothing arbitrary at the hands of respondent No.2, while passing the impugned order. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case in hand, instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that the petitioners were working as Accounts Clerks in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.950- 1500/- plus Rs.50/- as special pay. It is also a matter of record that this pay- scale came to be revised to Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. It is again undisputed between the parties that while revising the pay-scale of the petitioners, an anomaly was created. On the representation having been made by the aggrieved employees, Board of Directors of the respondent- Corporation constituted the Committee comprising the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, Joint Secretary Agriculture and the Deputy Secretary as nominee member of the Finance Department, to consider the issue so as to address the grievance of the employees like the CWP No.16850 of 1995 4 petitioners, by removing the anomaly in the revision of pay-scale. This Committee was constituted vide Annexure P-4.
The above-said Committee, so constituted by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation considered the matter in detail. After due deliberations, the Committee took a conscious decision and approved the revision of pay-scales of Accounts Clerks like petitioners from pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- plus Rs.50/- as special pay to Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide Annexure P-5, in its meeting held on 9.12.1993. The relevant observations made by the Committee read as under:-
"Item No.6: REVISION OF PAY SCALES OF ACCOUNTS CLERKS :-
"The committee considered the item regarding pay revision of the post of Accounts Clerk. The Directors noted that the pay scales of Accounts Clerk in Haryana State Marketing Board, Housing Board Haryana, HFC, HUDA and Haryana Agro Industries Corporation is Rs.1400-2600, whereas in HLRDC the pay scale is Rs.950-1500+Rs.50/- special pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The members noted that pay scale of Accounts Clerk in F.C. Office, Town and Country Planning Deptt. and other Govt. Departments as listed from the Agenda was revised to Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. After detailed discussions the Committee approved the revision of pay scale of Accounts Clerks from Rs.950-1500+Rs.50/- special pay to Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
xxx xxx
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
S.S.Chaudhary, Manik B. Sonawane, Raj Kumar, IAS IAS IAS, Director Director Managine Director"
After the above-said decision of the Committee vide Annexure P-5, when the matter was put up before the appropriate authority of the respondent-Corporation, it was observed as under:-
CWP No.16850 of 1995 5
"1. REVISION OF PAY SCALES OF ACCOUNTS CLERKS The committee constituted by the Board of Directors decided to revise the pay scale of Accounts Clerk of the H.L.R.D.C. at par with Housing Board, Haryana, Haryana Financial Corporation, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation and HUDA from Rs.950- 1500 plus Rs.50/- special pay to Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 whereas the Bureau has suggested the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 01.01.1986."
The above-said proposal came to be approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation in its 98th Meeting held on 17.3.1994 vide Annexure P-8 observing as under:-
"1. REVISION OF PAY SCALE OF ACCOUNTS CLERKS :
The Board approved the revision of pay scales of Accounts Clerk from Rs.950-1500+Rs.50/- Special pay to Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 01.01.1986."
Before the above-said decision of Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation could be implemented, respondent No.2 took a complete somersault and while backing out from its own earlier decision recommending the revision of pay-scale of the petitioners to Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986, as recorded in Annexure P-7. Revision of pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040/- was ordered to be implemented w.e.f. 1.4.1995 instead of 1.1.1986, while passing the impugned order dated 24.4.1995 Annexure P-
11. The relevant part of impugned order reads as under:-
"AGENDA ITEM NO.5 HARYANA LAND RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION :
REVISION OF PAY SCALES OF ACCOUNTS CLERKS :CWP No.16850 of 1995 6
The proposal was considered and it was decided to revise the pay scale of Accounts Clerks from Rs.950-1500+Rs.50/- special pay to Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 01.04.1995."
Surprisingly, this time the respondent-Corporation instead of putting even a reasonable resistance, succumbed to the illegal pressure, while accepting whatever was conveyed by respondent No.2 vide impugned order (Annexure P-11) and passed while passing the consequent order dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure P-12), granting the revision of pay-scale of Rs.1200- 2040/- w.e.f. 1.4.1995 instead of 1.1.1986.
A bare combined reading of the above-said orders would show that firstly eligibility, competence and entitlement of the petitioners for the benefit of revision of pay-scales has not been in dispute at any point of time. Secondly, it was respondent No.2 itself who had earlier recommended the revision of pay-scales of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as noticed hereinabove. It is also pertinent to note here that petitioners are not claiming revision of pay-scale from Rs.950-1500/- plus Rs.50/- as special pay to Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986, but they are claiming the revision of pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040/- only, but w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead from 1.4.1995.
So far as the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that respondent No.3 was facing alleged financial crunch is concerned, the same has not been substantiated from the official record placed before this Court. Though, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 but there is a written statement available on record on behalf of respondent No.3. In fact, respondent No.3, has virtually admitted the case of the petitioners and there is not even a suggestion put forth in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3, that it was not CWP No.16850 of 1995 7 enjoying good financial health, at the relevant point of time. In the absence of any specific stand having been taken by respondent No.3, the contention raised by learned counsel for the State is only to be noted to be rejected. It is so said, because the contention does not get substantiated either from the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2 or from the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3.
So far as the removal of anomaly in revision of pay-scale was concerned, once the respondents have admitted their mistake that an anomaly was created, then it was least expected from the respondent authorities to remove the anomaly from that very date when it was created. Respondents cannot be permitted to draw any benefit out of their own wrong. Once the petitioners were not at fault in this regard, they cannot be made to suffer for the fault on behalf of the respondents. Further respondent No.2 has miserably failed to point out any reason, whatsoever, while granting the benefit of revision of pay-scale to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.1995 instead of 1.1.1986. Thus, such a non-speaking and cryptic order cannot be sustained, for this reason also.
The above-said view taken by this Court also finds support from the above-said three judgments of this Court. The relevant observations made by this Court in Prem Raj Giri's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-
"Once the claim of the petitioners was found to be genuine and no fault was found with the petitioners, they should not have been denied their due claim w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The revision of pay scales was made effective from 1.1.1986. No reason, whatsoever, is forthcoming as to why the benefit of revision of pay scales was not granted to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the date from which other similarly situated CWP No.16850 of 1995 8 employees of HAFED, were granted this benefit.
In view of the abovesaid discussion, it is unhesitatingly held that action of the respondents making the revised pay scales effective from 1.4.1993 instead of 1.1.1986, was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory as well. Such an action on the part of the respondent authorities cannot be sustained.
The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Thakur's case (supra). The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 7 of the judgment, which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-
"As observed earlier, no restructuring of cadre and redistribution of posts in regard to 40 posts of Assistant Directors was involved at all so as to justify the stand of the appellants to extend the benefits of revised pay scales of Assistant Directors with effect from January 1, 1997. No other reason could be advanced by the appellants to justify their stand that the Assistant Directors were entitled to benefit of revised pay scale with effect from January 1, 1997. As the appellants were not required to undertake exercise of restructuring of cadre nor was it necessary to amend the recruitment Rules, the Assistant Directors forming part of the group of 40 to which the respondent belonged could not have been denied the benefit of revision of pay scale with effect from January 1, 1996, which benefit was awarded to other similarly situated employees with effect from January 1, 1996. As the decision to give benefit of revision of pay scale to the Assistant Directors with effect from October 1, 1997 was found to be unreasonable, unjust, arbitrary and prejudicial to the section of the employees, the Tribunal directed the appellants CWP No.16850 of 1995 9 to grant benefit of revision of pay scale to the respondent with effect from January 1, 1996. The said decision was not found to be erroneous or illegal at all and therefore the High Court was justified in not interfering with the same while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Respondent No.1, being an instrumentality of the State, certainly falls within the ambit of the "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute this aspect of the matter. In an almost identical fact situation, this Court in Om Parkash Malik's case (supra) held as under:-
The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that both the Board as well as the State of Haryana fall within the meaning of 'State' as defined in Articles 12 and 36 of the Constitution of India and therefore, whatever grades the State of Haryana gives to its employees must ipso facto be given by the Board to its employees as well. The contentions is that both the employers being 'State' for the purposes of Part III and IV of the Constitution cannot be allowed to give different frades to their respective employees. I regret my inability to accept this contention as well. The Board, no doubt, is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, as an employer it cannot be allowed to discriminated amongst its own employees because all its actions have to be judged in the light of fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Board as an employer is different from the State Government and its employees cannot be said to be State Govt. employees and for this reason, this Board as an autonomous statutory body can always have and fix pays scales for its employees which may be different from the pay scales fixed by the State CWP No.16850 of 1995 10 government for its own employees. If the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners were to be accepted then all different autonomous bodies not only within the State but throughout the country which would fall within the ambit of article 12, cannot have different pay scales for their respective employees. I am of the view that such bodies can have their own pay scales and the mere fact that those scales are different under one authority or the other would not violate the equality clause guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.
Lastly, it was urged that the Pay Anomalies Committee constituted by the Board recommended the scale of 1350-2200 w.e.f. May 1, 1990 for the Upper Division Clerks and Typewriter Mechanics and the Board while accepting, the recommendations started giving those grades to them only w.e.f. the date recommended by the Committee and not from the date when the Board decided to revise the grands of its employees. We find force it this contention. It is not in dispute that Board decided to revise the grades of different categories of its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986 including the grades of the petitioners. It was only when some anomalies came to notice in the implementation of those revised grades that (sic) anomalies committee was constituted with a view to remove those anomalies. This committee after examining the various anomalies and obviously with a view to remove them recommended to the Board the higher pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- for the class of employees like the petitioners. If anomalies existed in the implementation of the revised grades and the same had to be removed they must necessarily be removed from the date when the grades were revised and there would be no meaning in removing an anomaly from a date subsequent to the date when the grades were revised. In other words, if new grades had to be given by CWP No.16850 of 1995 11 way of removing an anomaly, such grades should take effect from the date when the grades were originally revised. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are justified in claiming the higher grade of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
Similarly, this Court in D.K.Gupta's case (supra), while deciding a similar controversy in favour of the employees, like the petitioners herein, observed as under:-
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and noticing the grievance made in the petition, I am of the opinion that the decision of the respondents in prescribing a date other than the date which was prescribed for the employees of the State in the matter of revision of pay-scales is unsustainable being discriminatory.
Once the Corporation has taken a conscious decision to equate its employees with those of the State Government in the matter of pay and which decision has not been questioned by the State, it cannot clearly limit the benefit by prescribing a date as this action would have no rationality, nor any nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Such an artificial distinction which the State chooses to impose without any plausible explanation is therefore, declared to be arbitrary. Hence Annexure P-7 is quashed on this score Such an anomaly was bound to be rectified from the same date when it was created. The respondents cannot be permitted to take the benefit of their own wrong and that too at the cost of employees, against whom there was no allegation of any kind, whatsoever. In such a situation, employees like the petitioners could not have been made to suffer for the alleged bonafide mistake of the respondents."
No other argument was raised.
CWP No.16850 of 1995 12Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that since the impugned orders passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 have been found to be patently illegal, the same are hereby set aside.
Consequently, the petitioners are held entitled for the benefit of revision of pay-scales of Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 1.4.1995. Natural consequences will follow. Respondent No.3 is directed to do the needful within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Since the above-said financial benefit has been illegally withheld, petitioners shall also be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date when it became due till the date of actual payment. If needful is not done within the stipulated period, the petitioners shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.
12.11.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE