Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Beej Evam Farm ... vs Brijendra Kumar Bhargav on 9 March, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
MAIN SEAT AT JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH: HON. SHRI S.K. SETH AND
HON. SMT. ANJULI PALO, JJ)
Writ Appeal No.424 of 2010
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Beej Evam Farm
Vikas Nigam & Another
...Appellant/s
V E R S U S
Brijendra Kumar Bhargav & Others
...Respondent/s
Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate with
Shri Laven Arora, Advocate for the
appellants.
Smt. Amrit Kaur Ruprah, Advocate for the
respondents No.1 to 4.
Whether approved for reporting - Yes/No
Law Laid Down -
Significant Paragraphs -
O R D E R
(Delivered on this 9th day of March, 2018) PER SETH, J.
This order shall also govern the disposal of CONC. No.516/2011 (Brijendra Kumar Bhargava & Others Vs. Shri Dr. R.K. Gupta & Others), Writ Petition No.11357/2015 (Bundel Singh Gurgar & Others Vs. M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam & Others), Writ ::2::
Writ Appeal No.424/2010Petition No.20271/2015 (Surendra Singh Raghuvanshi & Others Vs. M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam & Others), Writ Petition No.10011/2016 (Halkeveer Singh Kushwaha Vs. M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam & Others) and Writ Petition No.16352/2016 (Suresh Kumar Dwivedi & Others Vs. M.P. State Seed and Farm Development Corporation Ltd. & Others) as controversy involved in all the matters are identical. For the sake of convenience and disposal of the present controversy, we have noticed the facts from Writ Appeal No.424/2010.
2. This is an intra-Court appeal under Section 2 of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arising out of the order dated 24 th of November, 2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4731/2000 whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 to 4 was allowed and they were directed to give the benefit of the pay scale prescribed for Junior Accountants.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the ::3::
Writ Appeal No.424/2010learned Single Judge fell into manifest error in law in presuming that the nature of work, duty and responsibility of Junior Production Assistants and Junior Accountants is identical and therefore, both the posts are of the same grade and therefore, the occupants are entitled to similar pay scale.
4. The facts in brief leading to the Writ Appeal are as under:-
5. Respondents No.1 to 4 are appointed as Junior Production Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.575-880/- and subsequently, it was revised to Rs.975-1650/- and with effect from 01.01.1986, it was revised to Rs.1150-1800/-.
6. Admittedly, at the initial stage of their appointment, the pay scale of the posts of Junior Production Assistant and Junior Accountant were same, however, subsequently, the pay scale of Junior Accountant was revised to Rs.1200-2400/-. It is also submitted by the appellants that pay scale of Rs.1150-1800/- was revised to ::4::
Writ Appeal No.424/2010Rs.3050-4590/- whereas the pay scale of Junior Accountant was revised to Rs.4000-7000/-. Under the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 1998, the pay scale of Junior Production Assistant was revised to Rs.3500-5200/-. These facts are not disputed.
7. Learned Single Judge committed an error in treating the posts of Junior Production Assistant and Junior Accountant of similar nature. In the reply filed the respondents (appellants herein) in the Writ Petition No.4731/2000, it has been categorically stated that both posts of Junior Production Assistant and Junior Accountant are not of the same cadre, their educational qualifications are different and on a bald assertion that they were required to work as Accountant when they are not posted in the field. It was also pointed out that posts of Junior Production Assistant and Junior Accountant are not in the same grade and their seniority list is maintained separately and there is no interchangeability.
::5::
Writ Appeal No.424/20108. Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4731/2000 has held as under:
"The second ground
raised objecting to
grant of benefit to the petitioners are that the qualification and the experience required for appointment on the post of Junior Accountant and Junior Production Assistant are different and therefore, benefit cannot be extended to the petitioners. The aforesaid objection has to be out rightly rejected for the simple reason that form the very beginning Junior Production Assistants and Junior Accountants were treated at par in the respondents establishment. Both the Junior Production Assistants and Junior Accountants were carrying the same pay scale right from the beginning, initially both were kept in the pay scale of 575-880/-, subsequently revised to 975-1650/- and thereafter 1150-1800/- w.e.f. 1.1.86. When for the purpose of maintaining uniformity ::6::
Writ Appeal No.424/2010in the pay scale and after evaluating the working condition with regard to persons working as Junior Accountants and Junior Production Assistants, similar pay scale was granted as indicated herein above there has to be some justification on the part of the respondents in giving a different treatment all of a sudden to the petitioners in comparison to the benefit granted to the Junior Accountants when both were treated at par and both were drawing the similar pay scale, there has to be some reasonable justification for granting the benefit of higher pay scale to the Junior Accountants and denying the same to Junior Production Assistants, when in the past both were treated alike. It seems that the benefit was denied to the petitioners and considering the mistake committed the benefit granted to Junior Accountant were withdrawn on 25.11.2000 and one the withdrawal ::7::Writ Appeal No.424/2010
order dated 25.11.2000 is quashed by a Bench of this Court and when the benefit of revision in pay is extended to the Junior Accountant then there is no reason for denying the same benefit to the petitioners when all along petitioners and Junior Accountants were kept in the same pay scale and treated alike in all respect.
Accordingly finding the justification given by the respondents for not extending the benefit to the petitioner to be wholly unsustainable without any cogent reason, this Court deems it appropriate to the grant the benefit to the petitioners."
9. This has been seriously criticised by learned counsel for the appellants. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 supported the order impugned and submitted that it does not suffer from any infirmity.
10. We have heard rival contentions at length and perused the material available on record.
::8::
Writ Appeal No.424/201011. In the case of Nain Singh Bhakuni & Others Vs. Union of India & Another reported in (1998) 3 SCC 348 , it has been held that similarity in the work but difference in educational qualifications is valid ground for difference in pay scale.
12. In the case of Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy and Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 347 , it has been held as under:-
"14. Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India envisages the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The said doctrine, however, does not contemplate that only because the nature of the work is same, irrespective of an educational qualification or irrespective of their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations the said doctrine would be automatically applied. The holders of a higher educational qualification can be treated as a separate class. Such classification, it is trite, is reasonable.
::9::Writ Appeal No.424/2010
Employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualification can, thus, be treated differently."
13. In the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa reported in (1974) 1 SCC 19 , educational qualification has been recognized as a safe criterion for determining the validity of classification.
14. In the case of State of Haryana and Another Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association reported in (2002) 6 SCC 72 , parity in employment or equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right of employee, although it is a constitutional goal.
15. As we have pointed out herein above, the educational qualifications for the post of Junior Accountants is B.Com. with 3 years experience in account work whereas the educational qualification required for the post of Junior Production Assistants is ::10::
Writ Appeal No.424/2010Higher Secondary in Agriculture subject.
16. Thus, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge erred in law in allowing the Writ Petition No.4731/2000.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are unable to sustain the order of learned Single Judge and as such, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and is set-aside. As a result, the Writ Appeal is allowed.
18. Let a copy of this order be retained in the file of CONC. No.516/2011, W.P. No.11357/2015, W.P. No.20271/2015, W.P. No.10011/2016 and W.P. No.16352/2016.
19. Ordered accordingly.
(S.K. SETH) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
J U D G E J U D G E
@shish
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KUMAR JAIN
Date: 2018.03.09
17:43:16 +05'30'