Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Avtar vs Transport Commissioner on 28 July, 2000
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Ram Avtar petitioner seeks a direction for higher pay scale on the basis of instructions dated 8.2.1994 or the pay scale equivalent granted to the juniors who were similarly situated.
2. The facts alleged are that the petitioner was appointed as a Helper on daily wage basis on 10.7.1976. He was to be paid at the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. On 28.8.1976 he was appointed as a helper on regular basis. He was appointed as Assistant Fitter vide order dated 22.4.1980 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. The said pay scale was revised to Rs. 1200-2040 with effect from 1.1.1986. It is further asserted that the petitioner passed the matriculation examination in March 1973 from the Board of School Education, Haryana, and thereafter also passed I.T.I, examination in the Trade of Diesel Mechanic from the Ministry of Labour, National Council for Training in Vocational Trade.
3. Haryana Government issued instructions dated 19.4.1982 for the technical posts in various departments for which minimum educational qualification prescribed was Matric with I.T.I. Certificate. The pay scale was revised to Rs. 480-760 w.e.f. 1.4.1979. The petitioner claims that he was Assistant Fitter having the requisite qualifications and was entitled to the seale of Rs. 480-760 but was not granted the said pay seale The same scale was granted to Mansa Ram Mechanic. He was junior to the petitioner and was having similar qualifications. Similarly, Jai Bhagwan, Fitter, was junior to the petitioner and was also granted the pay scale according to the said instructions. Identical was stated to be the case of Rajbir Singh, Assistant Fitter, who is Junior to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner claims that he is being discriminated. In addition to that, claim has been laid that, according to the government instructions dated 8.2.1994, an employee who has got promotion already but the pay scale of the promoted post is either equivalent or lower, is entitled to the benefit of higher standard pay scale. On these facts, the petitioner claims that he should be granted the higher pay scale.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Charkhi Dadri, the petition as such has been contested. The respondents pleaded that pay scale of Rs. 480-760 was given to the Technical posts in various departments for which the minimum qualification prescribed was Matric with two years I.T.I. Certificate w.e.f. 1.2.1981. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Fitter on 22.4.1980, Me was not entitled to the said scale. Sh. Mansa Ram, who the petitioner claims has been granted the same pay scale, was stated to have been appointed to the post of Fitter. The qualifications are Matric with I.T.I. Certificate and, therefore, he was granted the pay scale of the Technical post. The respondents claimed that Mansa Ram, in any case, is senior to the petitioner.
As regards Jai Bhagwan, he was, admittedly, junior to the petitioner. He filed a Civil Writ petition No. 4185 of 1987 for the grant of pay scale of technical post. It was as per decision of the Court that the said Jai Bhagwan was given the pay scale of Rs. 480-760. So far as Rajbir Singh is concerned, he too had been given the name pay scale because of the writ petition. Lastly vis-a-vis the instructions dated 8.2.1994, the respondent claimed that the employees who have taken two promotions during their service were not entitled for higher standard pay scale.
5. During the course of arguments, stress was laid on the fact that the persons junior to the petitioner have been awarded the higher pay scale. They were similarly qualified as petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is being discriminated. Keeping in view this fact petitioner's learned counsel deemed it unnecessary to refer to the instructions dated 8.2.1994. We also would not be in position, thus, to refer to the said instructions or express any opinion.
6. Admittedly, Jai Bhagwan is junior to the petitioner. He along with others had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 185 of 1987 which was decided on 14.1.1988. The writ petition had been allowed and the order reads as under :
Learned counsel for the respondents has given an undertaking in accordance with the instructions contained in the communication marked A attached with CWP No. 186 of 1987 that the petitioners who were in the pre-revised scales of Rs. 120-250 and Rs. 140-250 and fulfil the qualifications i.e. Matric with the years IT1 certificate and who were given the pay scales of Rs. 400-600 and Rs. 420-700 will be given the pay scale Of Rs. 480-760 with effect from 1.2.1981 in accordance with the Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.3.1982 within three months. In view of this understanding, this petition has become infructu-ous and is disposed of as such.
When such is the situation indeed, it was unnecessary for the respondents to have contested the petition or denied the said scale to the petitioner. When there is nothing adverse against the petitioner, he is equally qualified and is senior to Sh. Jai Bhagwan, necessarily he is to be treated at par with him.
7. Supreme Court in the case of Dr. S.M. Ilyas and others v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and others, AIR 1993 SC 384 : 1993(2) SCT 199(SC), was dealing with a similar situation and held as under :-
".....The appellants are Scientists who are rendering great service to the nation and we find no justification as to why the appellants or any other Scientists in 1CAR placed in similar position like the appellants should be deprived the benefits of the revised pay-scales on the higher post of S-2 and S-3. in case they were appointed by direct recruitment or by selection on merit-cum-seniority on the post ot Scientist S-2 or S-3 prior to those who have now become entitled to higher pay-scale under the impugned notification dated 9.3.1989." On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that the persons junior to the petitioners were granted higher pay scale because they had filed writ petition which had been allowed. Indeed, on that ground the petitioner should not have been deprived of the said scale.
8. We, indeed, hardly emphasise that the State as a model employer should not encourage frivolous litigation. When the claim is due to the petitioner, it should be granted the scale rather than direct him to approach the Court. Juniors to the petitioners who are equally well qualified had been granted a particular higher pay scale. There was no reason as to why the petitioner should be deprived of the same.
9. A similar situation had come up for consideration before this Court in the case of Kabul Singh and another v. Union of India and others, 1996(4) All Instant Judgments 389. In the cited case, certain juniors had been promoted. The promotions were made because the juniors had filed a writ petition and Delhi High Court had allowed the same. When the senior claimed the same relief, it was not allowed. This Court held that the senior necessarily must be granted the same relief. The precise findings are as under :-.....The mandamus (mandate ?) of Articles 14 and 16 being clear, it is not to be deviated from on the pretext that the employer was merely carrying out directions of the Court. In that case too, the claim of the petitioners therein was not considered in spite of the fact that they were senior and eligible to the persons who had gone to the Court. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge in O.P, Yadav's case (supra)." No different is the position of the petitioner. He is senior and well qualified as his junior who has been granted the higher pay scale. Consequently, there is no reason to discriminate the petitioner,
10. For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner would be granted the same pay scale as given to Sh. Jai Bhagwan but the arrears of salary due to the petitioner should be confined to three years and two months.
11. Petition allowed.