Punjab-Haryana High Court
D.K.Gupta And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 July, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.363 of 1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.363 of 1995 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 24.7.2013
D.K.Gupta and others PETITIONERS
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Shri Tej Pal Dhull,
Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Randhir Singh, Additional A.G. Haryana.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This is a writ petition preferred by the petitioners who are working as Junior Engineers with the Haryana Warehousing Corporation.
The Corporation took a conscious decision that their employees in the matter of pay would be equated with the employees of the State Government.
The petitioners who were working as Junior Engineers, were thus equated with the Junior Engineers of the State Government in so far as the matter of pay was concerned.
The State Government revised the pay-scales of its employees with effect from 1.1.1986.
C.W.P. No.363 of 1995 -2-
The Corporation followed the suit and decided to give the same benefit to its employees including the petitioners. The matter was sent for approval to the State Government which granted the benefit of revised pay-scales and the admissibility thereof to the employees of the Corporation including the petitioners, but with effect from 1.2.1992.
This is one part of the grievance of the petitioners that the benefit of revision ought to have been given to them with effect from 1.1.1986 and not from 1.2.1992 and the action of the respondents is discriminatory on this count.
In the meantime, another revision of pay-scales followed on 1.2.1992 which was again made applicable to the employees of the Corporation and for which approval was once again sought. The respondents granted the approval, but limited the benefit with effect from 1.4.1995.
This constitutes the second part of the grievance of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the grant of first revision of pay with effect from 1.2.1992 and the second revision with effect from 1.4.1995 instead of 1.1.1986 and 1.2.1992 respectively is a decision which is unsustainable being discriminatory.
In support of his plea, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. state of Haryana and others R.S.J. 1995(1) 838.
Learned counsel for the respondents justifies the stand of the State on the ground that they were well within their rights to limit the benefit to a particular date.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and noticing the grievance made in the petition, I am of the opinion that the decision of the respondents in prescribing a date other than the date which was prescribed for the employees of the State in the matter of revision of pay-scales is unsustainable C.W.P. No.363 of 1995 -3- being discriminatory.
Once the Corporation has taken a conscious decision to equate its employees with those of the State Government in the matter of pay and which decision has not been questioned by the State, it cannot clearly limit the benefit by prescribing a date as this action would have no rationality, nor any nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Such an artificial distinction which the State chooses to impose without any plausible explanation is therefore, declared to be arbitrary. Hence Annexure P-7 is quashed on this score.
The writ petition stands allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to the revision of pay-scales with effect from 1.1.1986 (in the matter of first revision) and with effect from 1.2.1992 (in the matter of second revision). The consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date they became due, be released to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(MAHESH GROVER)
July 24, 2013 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO