Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mangilal Bugalia And Ors vs State (Finance Department)Ors on 2 May, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6106/2012 Mangi Lal Bugalia & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 02nd May, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Ravi Chirania, for the petitioners. By the Court:
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 11.07.2007 and report of the Committee signed on 23.10.2006.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that post of School Lecturer and Head Master were given same pay-scale till the year 1998. A separate and higher pay-scale was given to the Head Master, thus issue aforesaid was taken up before this Court by maintaining a writ petition bearing No.2974/1998 at Principal Seat Jodhpur decided vide order dated 24th October, 2005. By the aforesaid judgment, the matter was ordered to be sent to Committee to take a proper decision. Therein, observations were made regarding equivalence of two posts, thus could not have been nullified by the Committee. The consideration regarding anomaly of pay-scale for the post of School Lecturer should have been considered in the light of the observations made by the Court but Committee denied equivalence of pay-scale on grounds taken by the Head Masters in their representation for justifying higher pay-scale. The Committee failed to apply its mind while making recommendations. The contempt petition filed before the Court was then decided vide order dated 16.10.2008. Therein, Court took cognizance of the fact that direction was for constitution of a Committee, which has been constituted by the respondents. The order passed by the respondents may not be as per law but then it was not for defiance of Court's order. The contempt petition was accordingly dismissed. In the aforesaid background, it becomes clear that order passed by the Committee was not taken to be a proper and just, rather it was observed to be in violation of law. Petitioner, thus preferred this writ petition and challenged report of the Committee.
Referring to the report of Committee at Annex.6, my attention was drawn to para 10 to indicate erroneous reasons to deny equivalence of pay-scale, moreso when, this Court while deciding earlier writ petition on 24th October, 2005 held that promotion to higher post exists from the post of School Lecturer and Head Master, thus two posts cannot be said to be different. Accordingly, it is prayed that while setting aside report of the Committee, direction may be given to respondents to provide equivalent pay-scale to the School Lecturer, which should be at par with that of Head Master.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and scanned the matter carefully.
Before averting to the arguments made by learned counsel for petitioner, it is necessary to consider as to what is the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the matters of pay anomaly. This Court cannot exercise same jurisdiction as exist with the executive. It is for the executive to determine pay-scale of respective posts. It can seek recommendation of a Committee or a Commission. The aforesaid issue is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors. reported in 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 153. Para No.12 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant, thus is quoted hereunder :
12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well-settled that equation of posts and determination of pay-scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commission, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requistite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his 913 responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharges of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay-scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay-scales has to be achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job-charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay-scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalisation of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualification required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and verticle relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and verticle relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchial arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub- Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the registration service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
The question comes as to whether report with consequential order under challenge can be held illegal in view of the observations made by the High Court in the earlier litigation.
The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court shows limited jurisdiction of this Court in these matters. A direction to provide same pay-scale was not given while deciding earlier writ petition. The Court issued direction for constitution of Committee. This was complied with by the respondents and now a detailed report exists as to why School Lecturers are not entitled for the same pay-scale as of the Head Master. Detailed discussion has been made in the report. My attention has been drawn to para Nos.9 & 10 of the report.
In para No.9 of report, difference of responsibilities of two posts have been mentioned. The perusal of report indicates as to whether Head Master shoulder higher responsibility or different responsibility than to the School Lecturer. It is stated by the petitioners that para No.9 is nothing but verbatim same as was represented by the Head Master to claim higher pay-scale. I find that when both the parties were allowed to represent their case then Committee was required to form opinion based on analysis and therein they were free to accept view given by one or the other party on finding it to be logical.
Para No.10 of the Committee Report provides reasons as to why two posts cannot have same pay-scale. The reasons given therein are not perverse as Head Master discharges different type of duties than the School Lecturer, therefore, comparison of two posts cannot be made in the manner done by the petitioner. Even, if it is assumed that Lecturers are discharging responsibility as mentioned by the petitioners, it cannot be said to be at par with the Head Master. In any case, issue of pay anomaly is required to be decided by the Committee, which shouldered its responsibility in rightful manner. The avenue of promotion to same higher post alone cannot be a determining factor.
The equivalence of post can be claimed only if nature of duties and all other things are equivalent and similar. Herein the responsibilities shouldered by the Head Master are quite different than of the School Lecturer. Looking to all these reasons, plea raised by the petitioner to quash the report and consequential order cannot be accepted.
It is necessary to indicate that while deciding earlier writ petition by this Court, certain observations were made therein but it cannot mean that issue of equivalence has been determined by the Court itself. If that would have been so, there was no reason to sent the matter to Committee. A direction for constitution of Committee was given by the Court knowing it well its own limitation. Once a Committee has been constituted, then obviously report has to be challenged independently. The observations of this Court in earlier judgment is in regard to certain issues, which may like the promotion to higher post and the issue of same pay-scale prior to 1998 but then it is not at the end of game, rather equivalence can be granted only when all the things are similar or same.
Perusal of Committee Report does not show similarity of work and other aspects so as to grant equivalence. The respondents have further given reasons as to why two posts should have different pay-scale.
Looking to all these reasons, I do not find any illegality in the report so as inn the impugned the order dated 11.07.2007, hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
Item No.38 Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.