Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gajbir Singh & Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 27 September, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12184 of 1992 (O&M)
Judgement reserved on 05.9.2013.
Date of Decision: 27.9.2013.
Gajbir Singh & others --Petitioners
Versus
Haryana State Electricity Board --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. Survir Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J The petitioners, who were working as Bill Distributors under the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board, instituted the present writ petition in the year 1992 claiming identical pay scale i.e. Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990 as had been granted to Carrier Attendants, Shift Attendants, Assistant Line Men and Laboratory Attendants (herein after to be referred as the reference posts). Petitioners also seek the quashing of order dated 30.7.1991 (Annexure P-4), whereby the pay scale of the posts of Bill Distributor has been revised from Rs.825-1300 to Rs.950-1500 instead of Rs.1200-2040.
Placed on record is a comparative table/tabulation at Annexure P-8 reflecting the pay scales admissible to the post of Bill Distributor and the reference posts w.e.f. 1.4.1979 onwards. A perusal of the same would undoubtedly reveal that the petitioners while holding the posts of Bill Distributor, as also the reference posts were placed in the identical pay scale of Rs.350-600 (Rs.400-700 selection grade for 20% posts) on 1.4.1979. In Lucky the subsequent revisions effected in the years 1986 the post of Bill 2013.10.03 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP No. 12184 of 1992 (O&M) -2- Distributor as also the reference posts were granted the same pay scale i.e. Rs.800-1150 and thereafter, substituted to Rs.825-1300. However, the reference posts have been granted a higher pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990, whereas the pay scale admissible to the post of Bill Distributor stands revised from Rs.825-1300 to that of Rs.950-1500 vide impugned order dated 30.7.1991 (Annexure P-4).
Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would strenuously contend that a pay parity that held good between the posts of Bill Distributor and the reference posts from 1.4.1979 till 1.5.1990 could not have been broken and deviated from without any justifiable basis. It has been argued that the duties and responsibilities of the holders of the post of Bill Distributor has not, in any way, lessened over the years and as such the grant of a lower pay scale in comparison to the reference posts would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others, 1991 Supp. (2) S.C.C 565 and a Division Bench judgement rendered by this Court in case of Haryana State Biologists Association Vs. The State of Haryana, 1994 (4) R.S.J. 444.
Reliance has also been placed upon Circular No.70 dated 22.3.1991, issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board, Finance Section appended at Annexure R-1 along with the written statement to submit that the decision had been taken as regards admissibility of the modified pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 to all the existing employees irrespective of the fact whether they are Matric with I.T.I Certificate/Polytechnic or not. Mr. CWP No. 12184 of 1992 (O&M) -3- Sehgal would argue that the benefit of the Circular dated 22.3.1991 would also be available to the petitioners and to the holders of the post of Bill Distributor. In this regard counsel would place reliance on judgement dated 18.1.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No. 18754 of 1991 titled as Gurdev Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others and other connected petitions.
Per contra, Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate would advert to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-Board and state that the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990 had been allowed only to the holders of the technical posts for which the minimum qualification prescribed for direct recruitment is Matric with I.T.I. Mr. Gill would submit that while the holders of the reference posts are discharging technical duties, the petitioners while working as Bill Distributors are only to distribute the bills and as such, are not assigned/performing any technical/mechanical duties. With regard to the Circular dated 22.3.1991, it has been clarified that the same was issued upon a question having arisen as to whether the scale of Rs.1200-2040 would be admissible only to those employees, who are Matric with I.T.I or even to the existing incumbents, who were non- matric/I.T.I and working on the technical posts. As such, the categoric stand is that the decision contained in the Circular dated 22.3.1991 (Annexure R-1) would be applicable only to holders of technical posts i.e. the reference posts. Yet, another categoric assertion in the written statement is to the effect that the post of Bill Distributor has never been equated with that of reference posts.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. CWP No. 12184 of 1992 (O&M) -4- A somewhat similar question arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal and another Vs. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and others, 2010 (2) S.C.T. 250, wherein the holders of the post of Inspector Agricultural Minimum Wages were seeking parity with the Inspectors (Cooperative Societies) and Extension Officers (Panchayats). It was held that merely on the basis that at an earlier point of time two posts were carrying the same pay scale would not mean that after implementation of the revision of pay scales they should necessarily be granted the identical revised pay scale. It was further held that the benefit of higher pay scale could be claimed by the holder of a particular post only upon establishing that the reference category of posts were discharging identical duties and functions. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were in the following terms:-
"17. It is now well-settled that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one of the functions of the Pay Commission is to identify the posts which deserve a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts. The Pay Commission has two functions; to revise the existing pay scale, by recommending revised pay scales corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales and, secondly, make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. Therefore, the mere fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same pay scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised CWP No. 12184 of 1992 (O&M) -5- pay scale. As noticed above,one post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher pay scale and another post which is considered to have a proper pay scale may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay scale but not any higher pay scale. Therefore, the benefit of higher pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of the subject post and holders of reference category posts, discharge duties and functions identical with, or similar to, each other and that the continuation of disparity is irrational and unjust. The respondents have neither pleaded nor proved that the holders of post of Inspectors (Cooperative Societies), Extension Officers (Panchayat) and KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) were discharging duties and functions similar to the duties and functions of Inspector-AMW. Hence, the prayers in the original writ petition could not have been granted. In fact, that is why the learned single Judge rightly held that whether the posts were equivalent and whether there could be parity in pay are all matters that have to be considered by expert bodies and the remedy of the respondent was to give a representation to the concerned authority and the court cannot grant any specific scale of pay to them."
In the facts of the present case the specific stand taken on behalf of the respondent-Board is that the holders of the reference posts are discharging technical duties, whereas the petitioners are merely distributing bills. It is not even the pleaded case of the petitioners themselves that there is any similarity whatsoever between their duties and responsibilities while working as the Bill Distributors in comparison to the holders of the reference posts, with whom pay parity is being sought. As such, the claim raised in the present writ petition seeking identical pay scale of Rs.1200- 2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990 merely on the basis that earlier in point of time the Bill Distributors had been granted same pay scale as to the holders of the reference posts, cannot be accepted.
CWP No. 12184 of 1992 (O&M) -6-
In so far as the Circular dated 22.3.1991 (Annexure R-1) is concerned, the applicability of the same is only to the holders of the technical posts. In terms of such circular it stood clarified that the modified scale of Rs.1200-2040 would be admissible to all the existing employees under these categories i.e. categories of posts discharging technical functions and irrespective of the fact whether they possess the qualifications of Matric with I.T.I Certificate/Polytechnic. As such, it is clear that the Circular dated 22.3.1991 would not apply to the Bill Distributors.
Even otherwise, it is well settled that granting of a higher pay scale would entail the evaluation of duties and responsibilities of different posts and such exercise is to be carried out by the expert bodies. Various relevant parameters in the nature of education qualifications, nature of job, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment etc. would fall for consideration for grant of a higher pay scale. This Court would interfere only if the decision of the Executive/State/Instrumentality thereof while granting a particular pay scale is patently irrational and erroneous. The burden to prove disparity in the matter of grant of a particular pay scale would be on the employee seeking parity. In the absence of any pleadings in such regard by the present petitioners and coupled with the fact that there has been no rebuttal to the specific stand taken on behalf of the Board that no conscious decision has ever been taken equating the posts of Bill Distributors with that of the reference posts, the prayer in the present writ petition cannot be accepted.
In case of The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others (supra) four categories of employees of the petitioner-Corporation had CWP No. 12184 of 1992 (O&M) -7- raised the claim of parity of pay scales with corresponding posts under the Cotton Corporation of India. Such claim was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon taking specific notice that the nature of duties of the staff falling in all the four categories in both the Corporations i.e. the petitioner-Corporation as also the Cotton Corporation of India were the same. As such, such decision would have no applicability to the facts of the present case.
Likewise, in the case of Haryana State Biologists Association (supra) the claim of the petitioners therein, who were Biologists in the State of Haryana seeking parity with members of H.C.M.S. Class-II and Dental Surgeons had been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court on the basis that the State had made a conscious decision of providing parity in the pay scales of employees falling in two different categories and accordingly, it had been held that at the time of revision of pay scales one class of categories cannot be deprived of the higher pay scale by disturbing the parity. In the present case, no such conscious decision was taken by the respondent-Board with regard to providing parity in the pay scales of the post of Bill Distributor with that of the reference posts.
In the case of Gurdev Singh & others (supra) the Haryana State Finance Department had issued notification dated 23.8.1990, whereby various pay scales had been clubbed and a new pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was sanctioned w.e.f. 1.5.1990 in respect of technical posts in various departments for which the minimum educational qualifications prescribed was Matric with I.T.I Certificate/Polytechnic. The petitioners therein had contended that the revised pay scale was admissible to employees working on technical posts irrespective of the fact whether they possess qualification CWP No. 12184 of 1992 (O&M) -8- of Matric with I.T.I or not. Such contention was upheld by the learned Single Judge and it was observed that, if, the petitioners therein held the requisite qualifications to hold the post at the time of their initial recruitment, any qualifications prescribed subsequently will not effect their right as regards entitlement for the revised pay scales. While granting relief for release of the revised pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990, it was clarified that such benefit would be admissible to the petitioners, who are working on the technical posts.
The judgement in Gurdev Singh's case (supra) rather supports the stand of the respondent-Board in having confined the benefit of the revised scale of Rs.1200-2040 only to the holders of technical posts i.e. the reference posts in the light of the Circular dated 22.3.1991 (Annexure R-1).
For the reasons recorded above, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE September 27th , 2013.
lucky Whether to be reported? Yes.