Punjab-Haryana High Court
B.S. Baidwan & Others vs The Punjab Financial Corporation & ... on 24 April, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 3132 of 1995 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH
COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 3132 of 1995
Date of Decision: 24.04.2012
B.S. Baidwan & others
......... Petitioners
Versus
The Punjab Financial Corporation & another
............ Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
1. To be referred to the reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
1. There are 83 petitioners before this Court. On the date of filing of the writ petition they were working with the respondent - Punjab Financial Corporation (for short the 'Corporation') on the posts of either Senior Assistant, Senior Stenographers/ Junior Assistants/ Junior Assistant-cum-Typists etc. in different offices of the respondent- Corporation at different stations in the State of Punjab. The grievance in the petition is with regard to pay scales. The specific complaint is that persons junior to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Assistants (JA)/ Junior Assistant-cum-Typists (JACT) are drawing higher pay scale and higher pay than the petitioners. The anomaly is said to arise due to defective policy decision (P-2) of the Corporation. It is pleaded that persons now being promoted to the post of JA and JACT are placed in CWP No. 3132 of 1995 -2- the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 while the petitioners who have held these posts for longer length of time are said to be better qualified and in the same cadre/same service, with a common seniority list, and are senior to the promotees but are stagnating in the lower pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100. In order to remove stagnation the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation approved a promotion policy in its meeting held on 25.1.1990 and new guidelines relating to recruitment/ promotion/ upgradation of posts were approved. The hierarchy of promotion from the post of Clerk was to Senior Clerk and then to Junior Assistant. Direct recruit Junior Assistants were in the pay scale of Rs. 500-800 earlier and with the recommendations of the Punjab Pay Commission as accepted by the Punjab Government the pay of Junior Assistants was revised to Rs. 1200-2100 we.f. 1.1.1986. The pay scale of Clerks earlier was Rs. 400-600, which was revised to Rs. 950-1800 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. 40% from amongst Clerks were granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 1300-2100 after five years service and on such placement were designated as senior Clerks. Similarly, 40% of the Clerks after ten years service were placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 and were called Junior Assistants.
2. The principal contention of Mr. Subhash Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the issue in the present case is not of pay but of pay scale. The decision of the Board of Directors taken on 25.1.1990 was circulated on 2.2.1990. This promotion policy (P-2) according to Mr. Subhash Ahuja is more or less in favour of the petitioners but has not been implemented or given effect to. He draws attention of this Court to Clause 6(i) to show that the post of Junior Assistants/ Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and Assistant were sanctioned in the pay scales of Rs. 1200-2100 and Rs. 1500-2640. The CWP No. 3132 of 1995 -3- respondent-Corporation deliberated on the removal of anomalies in the pay scales of its employees following the Punjab Government Policy on such removal and issued circular dated 28.2.1991 revising pay scales from 1.1.1986 of Clerks from Rs. 400-600 to 950-1800 and granted the scale of Rs. 1200-2100 to 40% of the total number of posts of Clerks in the cadre after minimum 5 year's service to be designated as Senior Clerks and Rs. 1500-2640 to 40% of the total number of Clerks after a minimum of 10 years service. The Scale of Assistants and Senior Stenographers was, however, revised to Rs. 1800-3200 respectively. Mr. Ahuja submits that the pay scales were accepted w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the old position continued. The decision (P-2) was, according to Mr. Ahuja, not referred to the Anomaly Committee.
3. Mr. G.S. Bal, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, submits that had Annexure P-2, the circular dated 2.2.1990 been operative prior to 1.1.1986, then the claim made in the petition may have been justified. But the present case is governed by the decision dated 28.3.1991 (P-3) which effectively removed anomalies and, therefore, the decision of the Corporation in denying higher pay scales is legally justified. Mr. Bal submits that the promotion policy dated 2.2.1990 was premature and an incorrect decision since it was passed on the basis of the then existing Government policy which later on itself suffered modification, in the shape of Punjab Government notification dated 15.6.1990 placed on record as Annexure R/2. This notification amended the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The earlier first Schedule was replaced. Clerks in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600 and Senior Clerks in Rs. 500-800 were trifurcated into three groups Rs. 950-1800, 1200-2100 and 1500-2640. The notification dated CWP No. 3132 of 1995 -4- 15.6.1990 (R/2) was implemented in the Corporation. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners based on a decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation (P-2), which was prior in time became redundant, otiose and inapplicable. It is Annexure P-2 which has been impugned in this petition to the extent it affects interests of the petitioners adversely. This State Government notification dated 15.6.1990 is not applicable to Junior Assistants/Junior Assistant-cum- Typists/ Junior Grade II, who were originally appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 510-800. There could, thus, be no comparison between the two nor could claim of one be equated with the other on principles of parity etc. Clerks have their own channel of promotion and Junior Assistants and Stenographers their own. The decision of the State Government (R/2) was adopted by the Corporation in the meeting of its Board of Directors on 15.3.1991. The cadre of Clerks and the cadre of Junior Assistants, Junior Assistant-cum-Typists and Stenographs Grade-II are separate and distinct and there can be no comparison between the two. The claim of the petitioners for grant of pay scales equal to those of the separate cadre is not acceptable. Mr. Ahuja has placed reliance on several decisions dealing with parity of pay scales and removal of anomalies and on equal pay for equal work principle, i.e. Umed Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 1999(1) RSJ 790 (P&H), Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) SCT 252, Har Kishan v. State of Punjab, 1987(5) SLR 539, Bhagwan Dass and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 2049, Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(4 RSJ 769, Sisir Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa 1996() SCC 120 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Dharam Singh Dhankar & others v. State of Haryana etc. CWP No. 16535 of 1999 CWP No. 3132 of 1995 -5- decided on 12.9.2000. These decisions are clearly distinguishable on the fact that the cadres of which parity is sought are disparate. There was no legally enforceable obligation resting on the respondent- Corporation to refer P-2 to the Anomaly Committee when none existed. This court sees no merit in the contention of Mr. Ahuja or in the prayer made.
4. In any case, the matter of pay scales is best left to experts and normally no interference is called for in such matters in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This Court does not see any violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution in this matter. The writ petition is consequently dismissed.
24.04.2012 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 'sp' JUDGE