Punjab-Haryana High Court
Notan Dass And Others vs Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana on 30 June, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
CWP No.14251 of 1997 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.14251 of 1997
Date of Decision: 30.06.2014
Notan Dass and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana
Agricultural University, Hisar and
another ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate
for respondent No.1-University.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Addl.A.G., Haryana
for the respondent-State.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of order dated 18.08.1997, whereby, the claim of the petitioners for the grant of higher pay scale has been rejected. A prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant higher pay scale to the petitioners as has been granted to the employees of Education Department.
Brief facts of the case, as has been made in the present petition, are that the petitioners No.1 to 56 are working as Laboratory Assistants, whereas, petitioners No.57 to 97 are working as Senior Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 2 Laboratory Assistants in the respondent-University. There are three posts in the Laboratories, namely, Laboratory Attendant, Laboratory Assistant and Senior Laboratory Assistant. The post of Laboratory Attendant is the junior most in the hierarchy and the next promotion from this post is to the post of Laboratory Assistant. Further promotion from the post of Laboratory Assistant is to the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant. The qualification for the post of Laboratory Attendant is middle pass with two years' experience of working in a Laboratory with desirable qualification of matriculation. The qualification required for the post of Laboratory Assistant is "Ist Class Matriculation with Science or Higher Secondary not below second class with Science or Agriculture or Animal Husbandry or matriculation with at least five years' experience as Lab Attendant/Plant Observer/Mali or Middle with at least ten years' experience as Lab Attendant/Plant Observer/Mali.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the nature of duties and qualification of Laboratory Assistant is higher than that of the Laboratory Attendant. He further submits that the post of Laboratory Assistant is a promotional post from the post of Laboratory Attendant. Similarly, the qualification for the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant as well as nature of duties are higher than the post of Laboratory Assistant. The post of Laboratory Attendant is a Class IV Group-D post, whereas, the posts of Laboratory Assistant and Senior Laboratory Assistant are Class III Group-C post. Learned counsel also submits that keeping in view the qualifications and nature of duties, the pay scale of the higher post should be higher. The claim of the petitioners has wrongly been rejected without considering the nature of duties and the qualifications. Both the posts cannot be equated and as such, the action of the respondent-University is not only arbitrary but violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 3
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of this Court in cases Notan Dass and others vs The State of Haryana passed in CWP No.7460 of 1996, decided on 14.01.1997, Gurcharan Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others passed in CWP No.5492 of 1997, decided on 20.11.2013, Raj Kumar Kalra and another vs The State of Punjab and another 1990(1) RSJ 42, Har Kishan and another vs State of Punjab and another 1987(5) SLR 539, State of Haryana vs Devinder Singh Dhull and another 2000(4) SCT 186 as well as Braham Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others 2008(3) SCT 555, in support of his contentions.
Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed which is already on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the petitioners cannot claim higher pay scale only on the basis of their designation. Their qualifications and responsibilities cannot be compared with the employees working in other departments. The designation and pay scales of the post, against which the petitioners are working, cannot be compared with the designation and pay scales of the employees working in other departments. He further submits that the judgments, which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, have no bearing on the facts of the present petition as in those cases, the pay scales of the posts are same, whereas, in the present case, the pay scale of Laboratory Attendant is different from the pay scale of Laboratory Assistant. The persons who are promoted to the post of Laboratory Assistant or Senior Laboratory Assistant are given higher pay scale. Even the qualifications are also different.
Kaur Gurpreet2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 4
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file.
Admittedly, the petitioners are working as Laboratory Assistants and Senior Laboratory Assistants in the respondent-University. The claim of the petitioners in the present petition is that the same pay scale is being granted to the persons working on the post of Laboratory Attendant, Laboratory Assistant and Senior Laboratory Assistant, whereas, the nature of duties and qualifications are different. Earlier the petitioners have filed CWP No.7460 of 1996 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.01.1997 on the basis of written statement as the matter was under
consideration before Board of Management and the University and the respondents were directed to take decision in the case within a period of three months.
However, in response to the directions issued by this Court on 14.01.1997, the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the following grounds :-
"(a) The existing pay scale of Rs.950-1500 for Laboratory Assistant at HAU cannot be compared with the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 of the post of Junior Lecturer Assistant of Education Department because in HAU, the designation of the post is different than that of Education Department. Further the post of Laboratory Assistant in HAU have qualifications even up to Middle with 10 years experience as Laboratory Attendant/Plant Observer/Malies but in the Education Department, minimum qualification is Matric with Science. The duties of these posts are also different.
(b) Similarly the qualifications of the post of Senior Lecturer Assistants in Education Department are Matric with Science/its equivalent with five years Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 5 experience of Junior Lecturer Assistant/ten years of Lecturer Assistant/B.Sc. (Medical/Non-Medical) Hindi up to Matric but in HAU, these are ; Matric with at least five years' experience as Plant Observer/Laboratory Assistant cannot be compared and pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, which is given to Senior Lecturer Assistants (Education) cannot be considered for Senior Laboratory Assistants of HAU for which the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was given w.e.f. 19.08.1993.
(c) In HAU, there is line of promotion for Senior Laboratory Assistants to that of Laboratory Technicians in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600, whereas, as per petition, there is no such line of promotion in Education Department. To consider the request for grant of pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 to Senior Lab Assistants will create an anomaly for Laboratory Technicians whose pay scale is Rs.1400-2600 and is a promotional post for the Senior Laboratory Assistants.
(d) The matter relating to anomalies if any, can be considered at the time of next revision of pay scales by the State Government on the basis of Government of India, on representation from the concerned employees to the competent authority."
On perusal of reasoning given by the respondent-University, it appears that the pay scales for Laboratory Assistant of respondent- University cannot be compared with the pay scale of the post of Junior Lecturer Assistant of Education Department as not only the designation is different but the qualification as well as nature of duties are also different. A reasoning has also been given that in the respondent-University, there is a line of promotion from the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant to the post of Laboratory Technician and the pay scale is also higher, whereas, there is no line of promotion in the Education Department. It has also been mentioned that the matter relating to anomalies, if any, can be considered Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 6 at the time of next revision of pay scales by the State Government on the basis of representation made by concerned employees.
In Devinder Singh Dhull and another's case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were working as Assistant Sports Officers and Sports Coaches in the University. The post of Sports Officers, Assistant Sports Officers, Sports Coaches and A.D.P.Es. in Kurukshetra University were declared equivalent to the post of Director, Physical Education in Government/Private/affiliated colleges with effect from 01.04.1980 but their pay scales were different. In spite of equivalence, two different pay scales were there.
In the present case, not only the qualifications are different but the pay scales are also different. The judgments as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be applied, keeping in view the difference of qualifications as well as promotional avenues. The qualifications for the post of Laboratory Attendant, Laboratory Assistant, Senior Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory Technician are reproduced as under :-
" (a) Laboratory Attendant : At least middle pass and willing to do manual work.
OR Literate Beldar/Mali with at least two years'experience.
(b) Laboratory Assistant : At least Ist Class Matric with Science or Higher Secondary, not below IInd Class with Science or Agriculture or Animal Husbandry.
Matric with at least 5 years' experience as Laboratory Attendant/Plant Observer/Mali.
OR Middle with at least 10 years experience as Laboratory Attendant/Plant Observer/Mali.
(c) Senior Laboratory Assistant At least Ist Class matric or IInd Class higher Secondary with Science or Agriculture.
OR Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 7 Matric with at least two years' experience as Laboratory Assistant.
OR Matric with at least five years' experience as Plant Observer/Laboratory Attendant.
(d) Laboratory Technician At least 2nd class B.Sc in Biological/Physical Science.
OR 10+2 in Science with two years' diploma in Laboratory Technician course from a recognized Institute.
OR At least Matriculate with 15 years' experience including at least 10 years as Laboratory Assistant/Senior Laboratory Assistant."
A specific stand has been taken by the respondent-University in the written statement regarding nature of duties, which are as under :-
" It may however be added here that the duties of the Laboratory Staff are not specifically defined. Laboratory Attendants are performing the duties of washing and cleanliness, whereas, the Laboratory Assistants help the scientists/teachers in the preparation of media and other ingredients required for research work, whereas, Senior Laboratory Assistants help in the technical processing of the research, data and other material.
The Laboratory Technicians assist research
scientists and Postgraduate students in the
Laboratory work besides maintaining record of costly chemicals and maintenance of costly laboratory equipments, instruments etc. They are also supposed to attend other laboratory work as assigned to them."
The pay scales of said four categories, which have further Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 8 been revised from time to time, are reproduced as under :-
Designation Pay-scale Pay-scale Pay-scale w.e.f. Pay-scale w.e.f.
prior to w.e.f. 01.02.1981 01.01.1986
01.04.1979 01.04.1979
Lab. Attendant 80-120 350-500 350-500 (TS) 775-1025
400-600 (SG) For Non-Matric
For Non Matric 950-1500
400-600 (TS) For Matric
420-700 (SG)
For Matric
Lab. Asstt. 100-200 400-600 400-600 950-1500
Sr. Lab. Asstt. 120-300 400-660 (TS) 400-660 (TS) 950-1500
480-760 (SG) 480-760 (SG) 1200-2040
(w.e.f 19.8.93)
Lab. 160-400 525-1050 525-1050 1400-2600
Technician
The equal pay depends upon the nature of work and it cannot be judged only by mere volume of work as there can be qualitative differences. The functions may be same but the responsibilities make a difference as has been held in State Bank of India vs M.R. Ganesh Babu, 2002(2) SCT 749.
In case State of Orissa vs Balaram Sahu and others 2002 (4) SCT 902, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the applicability of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" depends not only on the nature or volume of the work but other factors as well.
The principles relating to granting higher pay scale on the basis of "equal pay for equal work" are well settled. The evaluation of duties and responsibilities of different posts and determination of the pay scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions as has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of West Bengal and another vs West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and others 2010(3) Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 9 SLR 677. It has further been held in the said judgment that it is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal which depends upon various factors such as educational qualification, nature of jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment etc. Apart from the other factors as discussed above, the fixation of pay scale is a delegate mechanism which require various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility and mode of appointment etc. In case State of Haryana vs Tilak Raj 2003(4) SCT 485, it was held that this principle can apply only, in case, there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Even in case, two groups are doing identical work, they cannot be granted equal pay in case there is no complete and wholesale identity.
Similarly, in case State of Haryana and others vs Charanjit Singh and others 2006(9) SCC 321, it was held by three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court that the principle of `equal pay for equal work' cannot be applied unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups.
In State of U.P and others vs Ministerial Karamchari Sangh 1997(4) SCT 769, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that even if the persons holding the same post are performing similar work but in case the mode of recruitment, qualification, promotion etc. are different it would be sufficient for fixing different pay scale. Where the mode of recruitment, qualification and promotion are totally different in the two categories of posts, there cannot be any application of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
In State of Haryana vs Jasmer Singh and others 1997(2) SCT 151, the Supreme Court observed that the `principle of equal pay for Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 10 equal work' is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations. Persons doing the same work may have different degrees of responsibilities, reliabilities and confidentialities, and this would be sufficient for a valid differentiation. The judgment of the administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities, which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bonafide, reasonably and rationally was not open to interference by the court.
In Federation of All India Customs and Excise Stenographers (Recognized) and others vs Union of India and others AIR 1988 SC 1291, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed :
" In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done, that is, on intelligible basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula."
It is clear from the facts as well as law position as discussed above that there cannot be a parity in the pay scale of the employees working on the post of Laboratory Attendant, Laboratory Assistant and Senior Laboratory Assistant and the petitioners cannot claim higher pay scale only on the basis of their designation. The qualifications and responsibilities cannot be compared with the employees working in other departments as claimed. Moreover, neither the designation nor the pay scale of Laboratory staff in the University is same with that of the Staff in Colleges or the State Government. The post of Laboratory Assistant is a Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14251 of 1997 11 promotional post from the post of Laboratory Attendant.
Accordingly, I find no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 30.06.2014 JUDGE gurpreet Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document