Punjab-Haryana High Court
G.K. Nagpal And Ors. vs The Punjab State Electricity Board on 7 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)118PLR778
Author: Iqbal Singh
Bench: Iqbal Singh
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The appellants are working as Laboratory Assistants/Shift Chemists in the Thermal Plant being run by the Punjab State Electricity Board. They filed Civil Writ Petition No. 387 of 1987 with a prayer for the issue of a writ of Mandamus Directing the Board to remove the amamoly regarding pay and to place them in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200 with effect from January 1, 1978. The petition having been dismissed with the finding that the qualifications are different, they have filed the present appeal.
2. Admittedly, the posts of Laboratory Assistants/Line Superinitendents, Auxiliary Plant Attendants/Sub-Station Operators and Bulldozer Operators were initially in the scale of Rs. 200-450. It is also the admitted position that with effect from January 1, 1978 all these categories of posts were placed in a uniform scale of Rs. 570-1080. Subsequently, by order dated March 5, 1981, a copy of which has been produced on the record as Annexiire P-II, certain posts like Line Superintendents/Auxillary Plant Attendants/Sub-Station Operations were placed in the scale of Rs. 700-1200. In appellants claim that the action was violative the right to equality. The matter was considered on different levels in the Board. Vide his note dated October 19, 1981, the Engineer(Thermal) had informed the Board that the duties of Lab. Assistant are of equal importance as those performed by the diploma holder in the D.M. Plant". It was also pointed out that vide order dated August 3, 1981, the Laboratory Assistant had been authorised "to record enteries in M.B. which clearly brings Lab. Assistant at par with A.P. As, whose pay scale had been revised to Rs. 700-1200" (A.P. As, Auxiliary Plant Attendants): By another letter of November 28, 1981, the Chief Engineer again informed the Board that the job content of laboratory Assistants is analogous to the job of Diploma Holders category in the Board". By yet another letter dated September 21,1988, the Chief Chemist informed the Board that "keeping in view the job contents and responsibilities............. in Thermal Power Plant..............revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1200 for the Laboratory Assistant may be recommended as operation of the DIM. Plant is very important for the smooth operation and life of power plant". Inspite of various recommendations the Board did not accept the request made by the appellants. Thus, they approach this Court.
3. The learned Single Judge has rejected the claim made by the appellants primarily on the ground that the qualification of B.Se. as prescribed for the post of Laboratory Assistant is different from that of three years Diploma prescribed for other categories of posts. It has been further found that even if "the duties of laboratory Assistants are of equal importance as that of Diploma Holders. Auxiliary Plant Attendants per se is no ground to equate the two posts". Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the premises on which the claim has been rejected are untenable. Is it so?
4. Admittedly, the post of Laboratory Assistant1 had been equated with those of Line Superintendents, Auxiliary Plant Attendants and Sub-Station Operators which are now been placed in a higher scale. Undisputably, prior to January 1, 1978 all these categories of posts were in a uniform scale of Rs. 200-450. It is also not disputed that with effect from January 1, 1978 all these categories of posts have been placed in the uniform scale of Rs. 570-1080. Purely, they were placed in a. uniform scale after it had been found that the level of responsibility as well as the nature of duties were at par. That having happened, what prompted the Board to pick up some categories of employees to be placed in the Higher scale? There is no answer on the file.
5. It is undoubtedly true that the posts of Laboratory Assistants are different from those of Line Superintendents etc. It is also correct that they carry different qualifications as well as different duties. However, the fact remains that all these posts had been treated as 'equal' initially. They were even treated as 'equal' even at the time of the revision of the pay scales. If at a Subsequent stage they were to be treated differently some reason should have been disclosed. The respondent-Board has net disclosed any reason in the written statement. This is inspite of the fact that various officers of the Board have repeatedly opined that the duties of the posts are analogous, the qualifications are similar and as such the plea for parity of treatment in the pay-scales should have been granted, Why the respondent-Board treated the appellants differently? Neither in the written statement nor by any other document the reason has been disclosed in the Court. Even at the hearing, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-Board to justify this action.
6. We are conscious of the fact that a differential treatment in the matter of pay scales on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a differential treatment is justified by some cogent reason. In a case where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be' granted. However, if the bask qualifications and the job requirements continue to be identical or as they were initially laid down, then the Court shall be slow to accept the action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some good reason is disclosed. In the present case, the only reason pointed out in the written statement is based on the qualifications and the job requirements. There has been admittedly no change in either of the two parameters. That being so, no new ground for creating a classification was made out.
7. In view of the above, we allow the appeal. The appellants shall be entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs. 700-1200 with effect from January 1, 1978. We are not awarding any costs as no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents-Board to contest the claim.