Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahender Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 June, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: June 3, 2011
Mahender Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State.
RANJIT SINGH J.
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.20006 of 2010 (Mahender Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.15595 of 2009 (Girver Singh Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.22869 of 2010 (Rajinder Singh and others Versus State of Haryana etc.), Civil Writ Petition No. 22674 of 2010 (Jagroop Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 22483 of 2010 (Raj Pal and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:
Writ Petition No. 22431 of 2010 (Ramesh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.21769 of 2010 (Raj Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 21608 of 2010 (Sh. Amilal Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 20035 of 2010 (Ajiot Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.20027 of 2010 (Om Parkash and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.20022 of 2010 (Ramphal and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.20021 of 2010 (Sahbu Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.20018 of 2010 (Rajinder Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 19097 of 2010 (Sh. Baru Ram Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.17911 of 2010 (Rakesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 23422 of 2010 (Rang Lal Versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 23075 of 2010 (Sohan Lal and another Versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2010 (Hanuman Parshad and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.3473 of 2010 (Pawan Kumar Sharma Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.3880 of 2010 (Dalsher Singh Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.4156 of 2010 (Vir Bhan Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.5582 of 2010 (Jasbir Singh Versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.5997 of 2010 (Ravinder Kumar CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 3 }:
Versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.7260 of 2010 (Rajinder Kumar Versus State of Haryana etc.), Civil Writ Petition No.7528 of 2010 (Pawan Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana etc.), Civil Writ Petition No.9352 of 2010 (Balbir Singh Versus State of Haryana etc.), Civil Writ Petition No. 12869 of 2010 (Satpal Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.13530 of 2010 (Amarjit and another Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.14103 of 2010 (Kanwar Singh and another Versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 12145 of 2010 (Lady EHC Veena Gautam and others Versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 13990 of 2008 (Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 6532 of 2009 (Rajender Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 19412 of 2008 (Dilbagh Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 4244 of 2009 (Jaivir Singh Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 15787 of 2009 (Raghubir Singh etc. Versus State of Haryana etc.), Civil Writ Petition No. 16643 of 2010 (Jagdish Chand Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.18385 of 2009 (Munni Ram Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 5625 of 2007 (Aplatun Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 19039 of 1998 (Tara Chand and others Versus State of Haryana and others) and Civil Writ Petition No. 1292 of 2010 (Subhash Chander Versus State of Haryana and others). The facts are being taken from CWP No.20006 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 4 }:
of 2010.
Finding that large number of persons were approaching this court with a prayer for grant of technical pay despite the issue having been adjudicated by this court on more than one occasion, it was thought appropriate to club all these cases together and have a response from Chief Secretary of the State to resolve this issue once for all. It is a matter of regret that despite sincere efforts, the issue could not be resolved, primarily because of unreasonable and unfair stand and attitude adopted by the State.
It is not a matter of serious dispute that Government itself has decided to provide for technical pay in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 for those employees, who are holding some technical posts in the department and are having matric with ITI qualification. The existing pay scale, which varied from Rs.750-940, 775-1025, 800-1150, 950- 1400 and 950-1500, has been revised to the scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. With this revision, the issue arose about entitlement of scale of pay of those persons, who are holding such posts which are now revised to the scale of Rs.1200-2040, but are not having qualification of matric with ITI. In some of the cases, the response of the State to the prayer made by various petitioners was that they are not holding the technical post and hence would not be entitled to this revised pay scale for a technical post. It is again not a matter of serious contest that a committee was constituted and on the recommendations of the committee, Government had issued a notification on 23.8.1990, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1, in order to remove certain discrepancies in the pay scales those were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986. It is noticed in this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 5 }:
notification that some of the employees associations of various departments had made a representations pointing out certain discrepancies allowed in the revised pay scale. The Government having examined the representations, had decided to modify the pay scale of some of the posts w.e.f. 1.5.1990 as per the details given in Annexure-A with the notification. The petitioners have placed on record Annexure-A as well and the relevant extract thereof would show that the general recommendations regarding technical posts in various departments for which minimum educational qualification prescribed is matric with ITI certificate/polytechnic have been modified to Rs.1200-2040 from the existing pay scales, which are also referred in the Annexure. While granting this modified scale, a note is appended, which reads "it has been decided that further recruitment of non-matric be stopped". It is accordingly pleaded that the revised pay scale was meant for all those who are holding technical posts and may not be having matric with ITI as a qualification. Obviously, if it has been otherwise, there was no need to make a mention that in future recruitment of non-matric be stopped. The plea accordingly is that all those employees working on a technical post would be entitled to technical pay scale as revised, but w.e.f. 1.5.1990, even though they may not be having matric as qualification along with ITI. It was in this background that the Chief Secretary was asked to undertake an exercise identifying posts in various departments, which were technical posts, so that this issue could be resolved finally. In fact, it was noticed that court was choked with such or similar type of petitions and the stand of the State invariably had been that such employees were not entitled to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 6 }:
technical pay either having not matric or that they were not holding a technical post. This court accordingly had passed the following order on 20.9.2010:-
"It is seen that in a large number of cases, people are approaching this Court for grant of technical pay on the ground that they are holding technical post. In almost all the cases, the State generally opposes such plea on the ground that the post held by the concerned petitioner is not a technical post. In some of the cases, this Court had already adjudicated and has held that the posts are to be treated as technical post. In some cases, the Court has taken a different view and has held that the post may not be a technical post. The issue needs to be settled to avoid persons approaching the Court time and again. It would be appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to obtain information about the posts which are technical posts in various departments so that technical pay issue is settled. Chief Secretary may indicate the posts in different departments which are taken to be technical post requiring payment of technical pay and the posts which are not technical and person manning the post would not be entitled to technical pay.
Adjourned to 09.11.2010, for Chief Secretary to do this exercise. At least the person holding the posts, which are held to be technical post, would not have to approach the Court over and over again.
Copy of the order be given dasti."
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 7 }:
The State had taken time to complete the exercise and it was hope-against-hope that the matter would be finally set at rest. However, the aim could not be achieved. The State counsel continued to adopt an opposing mode stand and raised the often repeated stance to deny the technical pay to some of the petitioners. The earlier decision, which was relied upon by the petitioners where this issue had been settled, was also not given proper attention while projecting a stand before this court. The reference in this regard is made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners to a judgment in CWP No.18754 of 1991 (Gurdev Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others), decided on 18.1.2010. This court has clearly held that the employees, if working on technical posts, cannot be deprived of revised pay scales of Rs.1200-2040 either on the ground that they are non-matric or whether they are ITI or not or even if they are having trade certificate of a different trade. It is further held that three years experience in trade is to be considered as equivalent to ITI and in this regard reference is made to judgment in the case of Labh Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana, 1995(1) RSJ 345. It is further held that the rule does not prescribe that only an employee working on a technical post possessing the qualification of matric with ITI is to be granted the revised pay scale. The pay scales of the posts and the grades have been revised and not of the employees with higher qualifications.
The matter can be looked from another angle. It would emerge from the pleadings that some of the petitioners in the writ petitions were initially appointed as Work Mistri/Work Supervisor and their services have been regularised. When similarly situated CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 8 }:
employees approached this court for grant of technical pay, the said writ petitions were allowed, but still the claim of these petitioners was not considered in the light of law laid down by this court. The petitioners would make mention to the anomalous situation that has resulted on this count and would point out that the persons working as Helpers in various departments and those working under the supervision of the petitioners being one step lower stood granted the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040, but the petitioners, who were supervising the work of such employees, were being paid less. The respondent-State concededly have categorized various posts as Group-C (Class-III) and Group-D (Class-IV) on the basis of pay scale. The posts with the pay scale of Rs.750-940, Rs.775-1025 and Rs.800-1150 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 would fall in Group-D posts, whereas the posts in the pay scale of Rs.950-1400 and 950-1500 in Group-C posts. Once the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 is given to those employees, who are matric with ITI and working on the above- mentioned technical posts, it would result in placing a person working in lower post in higher pay scale than the persons working on higher posts. This certainly is an anomalous situation which would be impermissible under law. In this regard, the petitioners have given certain examples. The respondents have not denied these averments in the reply filed and rather would submit that such persons have been granted the scale of Rs.1200-2040 upon implementation of instructions/orders/clarifications as issued on 9.8.2010. Copy of the same is attached with the reply as Annexure R-1. The operative part of Annexure R-1 is as under:-
"In view of the above quoted judgment of Hon'ble High CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 9 }:
Court, it has been decided to grant the benefit of pay scales of Rs.1200-2040/- notionally w.e.f. 01.05.1990 and actually from issuance of this letter to those employees whose qualification was not matric with ITI and they were appointed prior to 01.05.1990 on technical post whose qualification is matric with ITI under the provisions of service rules/draft service rules/qualification prescribed otherwise."
It was in this context that the Chief Secretary was required to file an affidavit containing information about various posts, which are to be considered technical posts in the various departments. The intention was at least to bring an end to litigation regarding these posts, which, concededly were considered technical by the department itself. The Chief Secretary did undertake this exercise and placed affidavits before the court in this regard and it was so noticed in order dated 16.12.2010. When the case was taken up for deciding various writ petitions, the controversy still remained where it was so and dispute continued to remain if particular post was technical or not. It was then decided to hear the petitioners and adjudicate the dispute on merits.
In view of what has been noticed above and has been held by this court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra), all the petitioners are held entitled to technical pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 irrespective of the fact whether they are non-matric or are having ITI as a qualification or not. The experience, as held in Labh Singh's case (supra) would make them eligible for grant of technical pay even if they are not ITI qualification.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 10 }:
Since the Chief Secretary has come on an affidavit before this court to give details of all those posts, which are considered to be technical in nature, the petitioners in various writ petitions, who are holding such posts, would be entitled to the technical pay w.e.f. 1.5.1990 irrespective of their qualifications. The detail of such cases is as under:-
1. Civil Writ Petition No. 16643 of 2010 (Jagdish Chand Versus State of Haryana and others).
2. Civil Writ Petition No. 19039 of 1998 (Tara Chand and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
3. Civil Writ Petition No. 1292 of 2010 (Subhash Chander Versus State of Haryana and others).
4. Civil Writ Petition No. 12869 of 2010 (Satpal Versus State of Haryana and others).
5. Civil Writ Petition No. 22483 of 2010 (Raj Pal and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
6. Civil Writ Petition No. 22431 of 2010 (Ramesh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
7. Civil Writ Petition No.20021 of 2010 (Sahbu Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
8. Civil Writ Petition No.20022 of 2010 (Ramphal and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
9. Civil Writ Petition No. 20035 of 2010 (Ajiot Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
10.Civil Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2010 (Hanuman
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 11 }:
Parshad and others Versus State of Haryana and
others).
11.Civil Writ Petition No.3880 of 2010 (Dalsher Singh Versus State of Haryana and others).
12.Civil Writ Petition No.21769 of 2010 (Raj Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others.
13.Civil Writ Petition No. 21608 of 2010 (Sh. Amilal Versus State of Haryana and others).
14.Civil Writ Petition No.20027 of 2010 (Om Parkash and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
15.Civil Writ Petition No.20018 of 2010 (Rajinder Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
16.Civil Writ Petition No.17911 of 2010 (Rakesh
Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others).
17.Civil Writ Petition No.9352 of 2010 (Balbir Singh Versus State of Haryana and others),
18.Civil Writ Petition No.19097 of 2010 (Baru Ram Versus State of Haryana and others).
19.Civil Writ Petition No.22869 of 2010 (Rajinder Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
20.Civil Writ Petition No.22674 of 2010 (Jagroop Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others).
21.Civil Writ Petition No.7260 of 2010 (Rajinder Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others).
CWP No.12145 of 2010
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 12 }:
Constables working as Wireless Operator with matric and I.T.I qualifications have already been held to be holding a technical post in terms of the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.2579 of 1997 decided on 12.8.2002. It has been viewed that notification dated 23.8.1990 is applicable to Police Department also.
Accordingly, the persons holding the posts of Wireless Operator in Police Department have been allowed technical pay.
In her affidavit filed before this court, the Chief Secretary has stated that posts, like Plumber Helper, Helper, Electrician Helper/ Fitter Helper, Pump Attendant, Petrolman, Fitter Coolie, Mali-cum- Chowkidar, Helper Motor Mechanic, Helper Blacksmith, Fitter Helper, Helper Mechanic and Helper Turner are such posts, which are not technical posts. It is also stated that the cases filed by persons holding such posts, namely, CWP Nos.Civil Writ Petition No.18385 of 2009 (Munni Ram Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.15595 of 2009 (Girver Singh Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 13990 of 2008 (Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.5997 of 2010 (Ravinder Kumar Versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.7528 of 2010 (Pawan Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana etc.), Civil Writ Petition No.13530 of 2010 (Amarjit and another Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 23422 of 2010 (Rang Lal Versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.5582 of 2010 (Jasbir Singh Versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 4244 of 2009 (Jaivir Singh Versus CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 13 }:
State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 5625 of 2007 (Aplatun Versus State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No.14103 of 2010 (Kanwar Singh and another Versus The State of Haryana and others) and Raghubir Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (Civil Writ Petition No.15787 of 2009), thus, are not covered by any Division Bench Judgment passed by this court. The State counsel, thus, would urge that all those petitioners who are holding such posts would not be entitled to technical pay. In view of this stand, these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respective concerned departments where the petitioners are serving to consider their case afresh in the light of law laid down by this court in various judgments and to see in case such petitioners would be entitled to technical pay or not. In case it is found that any of the posts occupied by such petitioners is either a technical post or is held to be a technical post in any of the judgments passed by this court, then such petitioners would be allowed technical pay scale. If any of these petitioners still is not found entitled to technical pay scale, then speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners concerned for him to take any remedy and measures considered necessary.
The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos.4156 of 2010 (Vir Bhan Vs. State of Haryana and others), 6532 of 2009 (Rajender Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), 19412 of 2008 (Dilbagh Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others) and 23075 of 2010 (Sohan Lal and another Vs. The State of Haryana and others) are holding such posts, for which CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 14 }:
qualification prescribed is non-matric and I.T.I. These petitions also are not directly covered by the notification or by any of the judgement. It may also need a notice that for doing ITI, matric is the basic requirement. Such cases be also referred to the Government for consideration and decision keeping in view the judgement passed by this Court and the nature of appointments they are holding.
In Civil Writ Petition No.3473 of 2010, the petitioner is occupying a post of Lab. Assistant in Animal Husbandry Department. There is nothing on record to indicate if this post is technical one, requiring any technical qualification. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to consider his claim for grant of technical pay keeping in view the nature of appointments, the qualifications and the law, if any, laid down by this Court.
Following the earlier precedent, arrears in all these cases, where the prayers are being allowed shall be restricted to 38 months from the date of filing of the respective writ petitions. The respondents would also be at liberty to decide individual cases as to the date of entitlement of respective petitioners for grant of technical pay.
While parting with this judgment, the court would wish to express its earnest desire that the State should take fair stand to lessen the burden of uncalled for litigation with which this court is really choked. All cases where the issues are settled should be decided at the level of the Government and it would be appropriate if the officers at the level of Secretary are asked to apply their mind at the time of filing reply, so that such type of avoidable litigation is brought to an end. Invariably, an opposing stand is taken even CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20006 OF 2010 :{ 15 }:
against the settled position and sometimes the State counsel even continued to stick to such stand leading to an impasse of the present nature. If the Secretary of the concerned department or the Chief Secretary had spared sometime to apply themselves to the issue raised, majority of the writ petitions could have been decided without contest and this time perhaps could have been utilised better. The petitioners, who are not very highly placed, have been made to spent their meager resources for seeking relief, which in fairness should have been granted by the State itself in majority of the cases. It is hoped that State will keep this in mind at least for future, so that the courts are able to put this time to some better use. Day may not be far off when courts may be compelled to take action against officers for not complying with the directions of the court once the issues are finally settled, so as to end this uncalled for and unwarranted litigation. The court can express a hope that such observations as made above would have some affect on the State functionaries.
June 3, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH )
ramesh JUDGE
`