Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh Tarar vs Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana ... on 13 September, 2013
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
Raj Kumar Arora
CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-23712-2011 (O&M).
Decided on: September 13, 2013.
Ranbir Singh Tarar
..... Petitioner
Versus
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, and
others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT Mr.J.S.Berwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Aman Pal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P13 dated 10.10.2011, passed by respondent No.2, the Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for revised pay structure of `9300- 34800 (PB-2) + 4000 GP, as per Haryana Govt. Notification dated 27.8.2009, (Annexure P11), vide which the Assistant Information Officer, Assistant Editor, Feature Writer and Copy Writer had been granted the above said pay scale by the Haryana Government. 1 Raj Kumar Arora
CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Brief facts relevant for determining the claim of the petitioner are that he was posted as Copy Writer in Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar on 6.3.1980. He was appointed to the Post of Proof Reader in the University on 28.4.1983. The Director Extension Education recommended the re- designation of the post of Proof Reader as Visitors' Guide and transferred the petitioner with the post to the Directorate of Extension Education of the University vide letter dated 15.4.1999 on the request of the petitioner as a result of which the post of Proof Reader was re- designated to the post of Visitors' Guide vide letter dated 5.7.1999 subject to the condition that no additional benefit will be allowed to him due to change in designation. On 23.1.2001, the Director Extension Education wrote a letter to the Registrar of the University recommending need for further change of nomenclature of the post of Visitors' Guide to that of Assistant Publicity Officer-cum-Visitors' Guide with a rider that there will be no financial burden on the University by changing the designation. Vide Annexure P4, the Registrar communicated resolution of Board of Management in 193rd meeting held on 22.12.2000. The Board had delegated the powers to the Vice Chancellor to re-designate the post as well as downgrade the post subject to the condition that there should be no change in the pay scale as well as discipline of the post. Exercising the powers under the said resolution, the Vice Chancellor re-designated the post of Visitors' Guide to that of Assistant Publicity Officer-cum-Visitors' 2 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Guide in his own pay scale subject to the condition that there would be no change in the duties or pay scale etc. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor vide Annexure P-6 requesting for re-designation of his post as Assistant Information Officer with a request that there would be no additional financial liability on the University Exchequer in case the post is re-designated claiming that the word "Guide" in his designation did not reflect a good impression on the visitors. Before the request of the petitioner was accepted to change his designation as Assistant Information Officer, he was asked to furnish his affidavit attested by the Executive Magistrate to the effect that on re- designation of his post to that of Assistant Information Officer he will continue to perform his duty of the post and will not stake his claim for better pay scale of the re-designated post or any other pecuniary benefit or any other additional benefit. The aforesaid information was conveyed to the petitioner by the Registrar vide Annexure P-7 dated 27.11.2002 through the Director of Extension Education. The petitioner furnished his affidavit Annexure P-8 accordingly on 2.12.2002 as a result of which Annexure P-9, the following order was passed on 19.12.2012: -
"ORDER No.Admn.E.1/2002/ Dated In pursuance of decision taken by the Board of Management vide item No.C-15 in its 193rd 3 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document meeting held on 29.12.2000, the Vice-Chancellor, CCS HAU, Hisar is pleased to order re-designation of the post of Assistant Publicity Officer-cum- Visitor's Guide in the Directorate of Extn. Education to that of Assistant Information Officer in the same pay scale of `5000-7850.
2. As a consequence of above and keeping in view the affidavit furnished by Sh.Ranbir Singh Tarar to the effect that he will continue to perform his present duties of the post and will not stake his claim for better pay scale of the redesignated post or any other pecuniary benefits and other additional benefits, the Vice-Chancellor is further pleased to redesignate Sh.Ranbir Singh, Assistant Publicity Officer-cum-Visitor Guide to that of Assistant Information Officer with immediate effect in his own pay scale subject to the condition that there would be no change in duties or pay scale etc. Sd/-
(K.P.Singh) Registrar"
The petitioner continued to work with the redesignated post of Assistant Information Officer till 2007. Vide Annexure P10 dated 22.10.2007, the Comptroller of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar requested the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Finance Department, for the grant of pay scales at par with non-teaching employees of Government of Haryana. A decision was taken regarding the grant of pay-scales to non-teaching employees 4 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of the University at par with Haryana Civil Secretariat. The Government of Haryana, Finance Department, vide Annexure P-11, dated 27.8.2009, approved the pay-scales of certain posts in Information and Public Relation Department w.e.f., 1.9.2009. As a result of Annexure P-11, the pre-revised pay-scale of `5500-9000 was modified as pre-revised scale of `6500-9900 and then exiting scale of Assistant Information Officer in the said Deparment was revised in the pay band of `9300-34800 (PB-2) + GP 4000. The petitioner submitted a representation Annexure P-12, on 25.8.2011 requesting for the grant of pay scale as per revised pay structure given to the Assistant Information Officers by the State Government w.e.f., 1.9.2009. The petitioner claimed that his pre-revised pay-scale was `5500-9000 as such he was entitled to the pay-scale of `9300- 34800 + 4000 GP. The representation of the petitioner was declined vide order Annexure P-13 with the following relevant observations: -
"Now the official has come forward to revise the pay-structure of the post of AIO from `9300- 34800 + 3200 GP to `9300-34800+4000GP on the pattern of the State Govt. Instructions circulated by the Finance Department vide its No.1/95/2009-3 PR (F.D.) dated 27.8.2009. While going through these instructions, it is revealed that pay-structure of the post of APRO and equivalent viz. Assistant Information Officer, Asstt. Editor, Feature Writer and Copy Writer has been modified from pre- revised existing scales of `5500-9000 along with corresponding revised pay structure of 9300-34800 5 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document + 4000 GP. Needless to say that Sh.Ranbir Singh Tarar AIO was granted revised pay structure of 9300-34800+3200GP. The said pay structure exists in the Budged Estimates of CCSHAU, Hisar, for the financial year 2011-12. Since the pre-revised pay scale of `5500-7850 i.e., lower than that of APRO and equivalent, the claim of Sh.Ranbir Singh Tarar, AIO for granting him corresponding revised pay structure of `9300-34800 + 4000GP does not appear to be on sound footing which needs to be looked into by the Comptroller. Accordingly, the case may be sent to the Comptroller to kindly take into account the above view point while considering the representation of Sh.Ranbir Singh Tarar, in the matter.
1. May submit the case to the Registrar to kindly approve the proposal depicted under para 3 and allow to send the case to Comptroller for taking further action therein, please."
The order was approved by the Registrar declining the claim of the petitioner on 10.10.2011.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain official orders like Annexure P-14 wherein he was asked to maintain cash books and internal store and Annexure P-15 wherein a decision had been taken that the petitioner will work with Joint Director (Extension) on retirement of Information Categorizer in the office of Joint Director (Extension), to contend that his duties never remained the same and he was rather required to discharge different duties after his post was redesignated and thus was entitled for revised pay- 6 Raj Kumar Arora
CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document scales.
On notice having been issued to the respondents, the University has admitted the factual position. It has been clarified that the petitioner had been re-designated in pay-scale of `5000- 7850 as Assistant Information Officer which was his own pay-scale subject to the condition that there will be no change in the duties or pay-scale etc. in view of the affidavit furnished by him. It has been clarified that the petitioner was initially working as Proof Reader. The post was re-designated on his own request in his own pay-scale for which he had also tendered an affidavit that he will not claim the perks of the post after his re-designation. It was done to save him from retrenchment on account of winding of the University Press as per the recommendations of the Restructuring Committee. It has been denied that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of pay-scale of the post of Assistant Information Officer at par with Assistant Information Officer in Public Relation Department of the State Government. It has been specifically highlighted that the pay structure of the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer and equivalent viz. Assistant Information Officer, Asst. Editor, Feature Writer and Copy Writer has been modified from pre-revised existing pay-scale of `5500-9000 to `6500-9900 along with corresponding pay structure of `9300-34800 + GP 4000. Since pre-revised pay- scales of the post of APRO and equivalent is `5500-9000 whereas the post of the petitioner i.e., Assistant Information Officer carried pay 7 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document scale of `5500-7850 i.e., lower than that of Assistant Public Relation Officer in Public Relations Department of the State Government, so the petitioner was not at all entitled to the relief claimed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that on account of petitioner having performed his duties of higher responsibility on his re-designation he would be entitled to the parity of pay-scales with the Assistant Public Information Officer working with State Government in Public Relation Department.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has argued that the post of the petitioner had never been equivalent either for pay-scale or on the basis of parity of duties, at any stage, as such, the claim of the petitioner for parity of the pay scales is ill- founded.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case Secretary cum Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma, 1998 (5) SCC 87: AIR 1998 SC 2909, wherein it has been observed that if a person officiates on higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that post and that he has got a right to be considered for regular promotion even if he is promoted on stop-gap arrangement. Any agreement which prevents an employee from claiming higher salary would be against public policy, contrary to law and would be unenforceable in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act. In the said case the respondent was promoted as Junior 8 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Engineer against which post he continued without being paid salary for that post and without being promoted on regular basis. He approached the Tribunal with a claim that he should be paid salary for the post of Junior Engineer-I and should also be considered for promotion on regular post on the basis of the qualification fixed for non-diploma holders with ten years service being one of the feeder cadre for the said post. He was the senior most person in the feeder cadre with ten years of service. The Tribunal had granted him the relief of payment of salary equivalent to the post of Junior Engineer-I with retrospective date and his services were regularised. The said order was upheld by Hon'ble the Apex Court holding that any agreement of the employee that he would not claim higher salary would be contrary to the law and against public policy and unenforceable under Section 23 of the Contract Act. The facts and circumstances of the said case are absolutely different from the facts of the case of the petitioner. It is not the claim of the petitioner that he had been promoted to the post of Assistant Information Officer on the basis of his eligibility, qualification or merits in accordance with service rules of the University. It is an admitted fact that it was on his own request that his designation was changed from the post of Proof Reader to Visitors' Guide then to Assistant Publicity Officer-cum- Visitors' Guide and then to Assistant Information Officer. He by his own conduct is estopped from claiming the benefit of higher pay- scale as for every request made by him for re-designation of his post, 9 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document he had consented that he will not claim higher pay-scale and will not seek any additional benefit. The petitioner has not claimed parity of the pay-scale with the Assistant Public Information Officer of Public Relation Department on the principal of equal pay for equal work.
It is also not the case of the petitioner that he had ever been equated with the Assistant Information Officer of the said Department regarding pay-scale. Even in pre-revised pay-scales, the pay-scale of the petitioner was not at par with the pay-scale of Assistant Information Officer of State Government. It is settled principle of law that Court has to consider factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, nature of work, value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality and functional need etc. of the two posts before equality clause could be invoked in the matter of pay-scale. There has to be absolute identity between the holders of two posts to derive the benefit of same nomenclature of the posts in two different departments. The nomenclature of the post of petitioner has been changed on his own request with an undertaking that he will not claim any benefits and it will not effect the State Exchequer with the re-designation. In this context reference can be made to Steel Authority of India Limited and others Vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 122, wherein it has been laid down that in the matters of judicial review of classification of posts equality clause can be invoked in the matters of pay-scales only when there is 10 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-23712-2011 (O&M) 2013.09.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is on the person claiming such right. Non-uniformity would not in all events violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In State of West Bengal Vs.W.B. Minimum Wages Inspectors Association, (2010) 5 SCC 225, it was observed that evaluation of the duties and responsibilities of different posts and determination of the pay-scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried by expert bodies. Granting parity in pay scale depends upon comparative job evaluation and equation of posts. It was held that Courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees.
Applying above said parameters to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to parity with the Assistant Information Officer of Haryana State merely on the basis of similarity of nomenclature.
Dismissed.
(M.M.S. BEDI) September 9, 2013. JUDGE rka 11