Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dariya Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 August, 2018
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 8770 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 8770 of 2010
Date of Decision: 02.08.2018
Dariya Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG Haryana.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner was working as Senior Draftsman in the Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited (in short 'HSSIEC') from 15.04.1981 to 13.03.2001. He was retrenched from the Corporation and was granted all the retiral and the retrenchment benefits from HSSIEC in terms of the State Government guidelines dated 06.02.2001. Thereafter, he was absorbed in the Department of Mines and Geology Haryana as a fresh appointment on compassionate grounds in a pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- whereas the functional pay-scale of the post of Senior Draftsman in the erstwhile organization was Rs. 5000-7850/- and his pay was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- on account of grant of 'higher standard pay-scale' which was a measure personal to him. Once he was absorbed in the Government Department that pay scale was protected. In this petition, the petitioner seeks claim from the Department on the basis of pay 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:15:47 ::: CWP No. 8770 of 2010 2 scales granted to employees with the identical designations in other departments. These facts appear not to have been present in the mind of the Director, Department of Mines and Geology Haryana when he started a crusade in favour of the petitioner as if it was a case of pay anomaly. There was no pay anomaly, and, therefore, the exercise in Annex. P-7, being the recommendations of the Director, considered by the High Powered Officers Committee (in short 'HPOC') again in favour of the petitioner by treating it a case of pay anomoly.
2. It is rather apparent that neither did the Director nor the HPOC address the real issue before them equating the post in the three departments as identical. They fell in error of reasoning in reaching the conclusion to wrongly advised stepping up the pay/pay scale of the petitioner. In any case, the recommendations could only have been accepted or rejected by the Finance Department of the State of Haryana. It may be relevant to mention that even in the recommendations of the Director he used the word "sympathetically" so that the pay anomaly is removed. There can hardly be a comparison between the post of Senior Draftsman in the Department of Town and Country Planning, the Department of Architecture and in the Department of Mines and Geology where the petitioner works. That apart, there is no specific pleading in the petition of the job requirements, duties and responsibilities, essential qualifications of a Senior Draftsman in the Department of Mines and Geology and those in the other departments.
2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:15:47 ::: CWP No. 8770 of 2010 3 Complete identicalness is required to apply the rule of "equal pay for equal work" in one Department equal to the other. Merely by virtue of common designation and nomenclature of posts, relief cannot be blindly granted to the petitioner for higher pay and pay scale.
3. It is averred in paragraph 10 of the written statement that leave alone the difference in the nature of duties and responsibilities of Senior Draftsman in the other cited departments, even in terms of qualifications prescribed for the post of Senior Draftsman in the Department of Town and Country Planning and the Architecture Department with which the petitioner is claiming parity, he has no actionable claim while a comparative analysis of the posts would show that even the qualifications are not identical. The table is reproduced as below.
Sr. Department Qualifications Prescribed Remarks No.
1. Mines & ● Diploma in Civil, Diploma is the Geology Mechanical Draftsmanship basic from recognized institute; qualification ● 8 years experience as which is a three Draftsman; year course from ● Knowledge of Hindi up to Polytechnics and Matric not a 'Certificate' course which is granted by an ITI
2. Town & ● Intermediate in The Country Architecture or should qualifications Planning have passed three year prescribed are Department degree course in varied than those architecture from an prescribed in the institution; or case of Mines & ● Three year Diploma in Geology Architectural Department.
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:15:47 ::: CWP No. 8770 of 2010 4 Assistantship from an Institute with two years experience as a Draftsman in the Architectural or Town Planning Office; or ● Diploma in Civil Draftsmanship from an institution with three years experience in an architectural or town planning office
3. Architecture ● For Assistant The Diploma is a Department Draftsmanship Diploma in three year course Architectural and constitutes Assistantship the basic ● For Junior Draftsmanship qualification for Diploma in Architectural the lowest post Assistantship with two of 'Assistant years experience after Draftsman' in the qualifying. hierarchy ● For Sr. Draftsman whereas a person Four years experience as having a Junior Draftsman Certificate is eligible to be draftsman in the Mines & Geology Department.
4. The principle of equivalence of the post of Senior Draftsman in the Department of Mines and Geology with the counterpart post in the other two Departments is a highly misconceived notion in the mind of the petitioner when neither on account of nature of duties and responsibilities; the hierarchy of posts in these Departments or in the educational qualifications prescribed for the posts can they be treated on par.
Merely because the designation and nomenclature are the 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:15:47 ::: CWP No. 8770 of 2010 5 same, it does not mean there is pay anomaly or the posts are absolutely one and the same to support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is already recipient of an unfair advantage from the beginning enjoying higher pay-scale (but with pay protection) and, therefore he is not in my view entitled as a matter of right to any of the claims made in this petition.
5. Learned State counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in Ram Rattan and others Vs. State of Haryana and another; 2017 (3) SCT 440. This case presents facts and legal issue which are not far off the point to the facts of this case.
For the above reasons, I find no merit in this petition and order it to stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
02.08.2018 JUDGE
kv
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:15:47 :::