Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs R.K. Verma And Others on 31 October, 2012
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 31.10.2012
State of Haryana and another
...Appellants
Versus
R.K. Verma and others
...Respondents
LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 31.10.2012
State of Haryana and another
...Appellants
Versus
Sachida Nand Sharma and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. B.S. Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for the appellants.
Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 to 4, 6 to 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30,
31, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44 to 46, 50, 52 to 56, 59, 61 to 64, 66,
68 and 69 in LPA No. 951 of 2012.
Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1 to 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 to 28,
33 to 55 and 57 in LPA No. 952 of 2012.
****
A.K. SIKRI, C.J.
Two writ petitions filed by private respondents herein were decided by the learned Single Judge vide common judgement dated 01.12.2010, as the issue raised by the respondents in both the LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -2- LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M) petitions was identical. All these respondents i.e. 69 in one case and 57 in the other case belonged to the category of Head Master/Head Mistress to which post they were promoted from the cadre of Master/Mistress after rendering 20 years of service. The pay scale of Master/Mistress was Rs. 5500-9000. After 20 years of service, the Master/Mistress was entitled to be placed in the higher scale of Rs. 6500-10500, in case, he/she did not get the promotion to the post of Head Master/Head Mistress, in the meantime. The promotional scale of the post of Head Master/Head Mistress was also Rs. 6500-10500.
2. As these respondents had already rendered service of more than twenty years before they were promoted, they had already been given the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500, while working as Masters/Mistresses. However, on their promotion, they remained in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500, which was the pay scale of the post of Head Master/Head Mistress. The respondents made grievance about this pay scale and grievance for remaining in the same pay scale even on their promotion and their submission was that they should have been granted higher pay scale on their promotion as the pay scale of feeder cadre and promotional posts could not be the same. Number of representations were made which were considered by the government and vide order dated 01.08.2000, the pay scale of Head Master/Head Mistress was revised to Rs. 7500-12000. Benefit of this pay scale was given from 01.08.2000, the date, on which the LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -3- LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M) order was passed. This, according to the respondents, was the partial relief and their contention, in this behalf, was that once the anomaly was removed which had crept in while revising the pay scales on 01.01.1996, proper date for implementation of the said order should have been 01.01.1996. It is in this factual background that all these respondents filed the aforesaid two writ petitions claiming the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 01.08.2000, granted by the government/appellants herein. The plea of the respondents has found favour with the learned Single Judge resulting into allowing the writ petitions vide judgement dated 01.12.2010 and issuing mandamus to the appellants to grant revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the date, when the anomaly arose. However, at the same time, the learned Single Judge has also directed that the respondents will get pay fixation on that basis notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and arrears of pay are restricted to 38 months from the filing of the writ petition.
3. It is this judgement of the learned Single Judge against which these two intra Court appeals have been preferred.
4. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would demonstrate that the respondents founded their case on the basis that on promotion from the feeder cadre of Master/Mistress to that of Head Master/Head Mistress, anomaly had resulted, as they were placed in the same pay scale. Since this anomaly had occurred, which was to be corrected, the appellants accepted the same by taking LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -4- LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M) corrective measures in having higher pay scale of Head Master/Head Mistress from that of Master/Mistress. As this was the anomaly, it had to be from 01.01.1996, when it arose and not from 01.08.2000, when the order was passed. The entire case was argued on the basis that pay scale of the Head Master/Head Mistress, which was a promotional post, should have been higher than that of Master/Mistress, which was feeder cadre promotion to the higher post and the pay scale of two posts could not be the same. The learned Single Judge found strength in this submission, in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Rajbir Singh and others Vs Haryana State Electricity Board and others, 2009 (3) SCT 543. Following passage from that judgement has been quoted by the learned Single Judge:-
"9... Irrespective of our aforesaid determination (on a perusal of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners), we have no hesitation to uphold the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so as to conclude, that in case of an anomaly, which had arisen during the revision of pay scales, the correction thereof, to be with effect from the date when the anomaly had arisen. In other words, if a pay scale wherein the anomaly had arisen was released from 1.1.1986, it is bound to be corrected from 1.1.1986, and not with effect from the date when the anomaly was discovered, or prospectively with effect from a date of the choice of the employer. Even the learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges the correctness of the aforesaid proposition. The basis of our conclusion recorded hereinabove arises out of a simple premise. Once it is acknowledged that a mistake has been committed, whereby an anomaly has arisen, the mistake has to be remedied in such a manner, that the aggrieved party does not have any adverse effect of the mistake/anomaly. This would be possible if an LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -5- LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M) anomaly in pay scales is corrected retrospectively with effect from the date when the anomalous pay scale was introduced. On the other hand, if the mistake/anomaly is corrected from a future date, the concerned individual will have to suffer the effect of the anomaly, from the date it had arisen, till the date it was remedied. The latter determination would be iniquitous and unacceptable in law as it would not be able to stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which postulates equality before the law and equal protection of the laws."
5. The learned Single Judge also referred to the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in The Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Vs Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Pensions Association and others, 2009 (3) SCT 635, as per which, once it is found that anomaly had arisen, it has to be removed from the date thereof. This is stated in the following words:-
"In Joginder Singh Saini's case supra, which has also been relied upon by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition, this Court held that having accepted the factum of anomaly and having taken a decision to remove the same, the Government cannot arbitrarily fix the date with effect from which the benefit of revise pay scale is to be given to the petitioners."
6. The aforesaid proposition of law, namely, when there is an anomaly and it is to be removed, the same is to be given effect from the date when the anomaly had arisen is beyond any pale of controversy. However, on the other hand, when the government decides to give or confer some new benefit to the employees, it has right to fix the date from which it has to be given. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, what is to be determined in the present LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -6- LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M) case is, as to whether order dated 01.08.2000 was issued to confer a benefit of a higher pay scale to the Head Master/Head Mistress and, thus, the government had right to fix that date or this was done to remove the anomaly.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana argued that the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 for the Head Master/Head Mistress was appropriately fixed and there was no anomaly. However, since these Head Masters/Head Mistresses, who had been granted this very pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500, even while continuing as Masters/ Mistresses after completion of 20 years of service were drawing higher pay scale and in view of their repeated demands this aspect was considered by the government which agreed to give them the higher pay scale, therefore, in such an eventuality, it was the prerogative of the government to fix the date from which such higher pay scale was to be given.
8. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that pay scale of the Master/Mistress is Rs. 5500-9000 and that of Head Master/Head Mistress is Rs. 6500-10500. Therefore, the pay scale of Head Master/Head Mistress was higher than that of Master/ Mistress. In that sense, there was no anomaly. However, a Master/Mistress, after putting in 20 years of service in that capacity was eligible for higher pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500, even when he/she was still Master/ Mistress. In that sense, it was clearly a higher pay scale granted on stagnation as Master/Mistress. The idea, thus, was to give higher pay LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -7- LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M) scale after such a long service even if a Master/Mistress is not able to get promotion for want of vacancies in the higher post of Head Master/Head Mistress. In that sense, it is in the nature of Assured Career Promotion Scheme (ACP Scheme). When such a Master/Mistress gets promotion to the post of Head Master/Head Mistress, he/she would remain in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500, which he/she was already given on completion of 20 years of service. On the other hand, if a Master/Mistress gets promotion to the post of Head Master/Head Mistress before 20 years of service, on such promotion, that person would be given pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 from Rs. 5500-9000, which he/she was enjoying before promotion. When the matter is to be looked into in this hue, normally, one would not find that there was no anomaly. It is a different matter that the government still thought to fix higher pay scale for Head Master/Head Mistress i.e. Rs. 7500-12000, keeping in view the fact that those who get promoted to this post after 20 years of service remain in the same pay scale and, therefore, they be put in the higher pay scale. If the State had granted pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 on the aforesaid parameters, probably, their decision to give this pay scale w.e.f. 01.08.2000, could not have been faulted with. However, the records produced by the respondents have belied their stand, in as much as, pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 for Head Master/Head Mistress is the result of anomaly, as perceived by the respondents themselves. The proposal which was mooted for LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -8- LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M) revision of pay scales of Head Master/High School, reads as under:-
"Proposal for further revision of pay scales for the post of Headmaster/High School and Lecturers in the School Cadre in Education Department.
(a) The Committee, therefore, recommended further revision of the pay scale for the post of Headmasters and grant of the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 for this category of posts.
(b) ...the Committee recommended introduction of a Selection Grade of Rs. 7500-12000 for 20% of the cadre of School Lecturers.
Proposal:
It may be mentioned here that this is a case of further revision of pay scales and does not fall under the definition of 'anomalies'. Hence, in the event of the Government accepting the recommendations of the HPOC, the revision is proposed to be made effective with a prospective effect i.e. from 1st August, 2000. This may kindly be approved."
On this proposal, the following decision was taken:-
"Agenda Item No. 2: Revision of Pay Scales of Headmasters and School Lecturers The item was discussed in detail. It was noted by the Committee that the School Lecturers had been given higher pay scales in Haryana since 01.05.90 as compared to their counterparts, i.e., the PGTs in the Central Govt. The Committee also observed that there was justification for grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 to Headmasters of High Schools in view of the nature of duties performed by them and the fact that the Headmasters of High Schools had been granted this pay scale in the Central Govt. The Committee, therefore, recommended further revision of the pay scale for the post of Headmasters and grant of the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 for this category of posts."
9. A reading of the aforesaid clearly demonstrates that not only the grant of higher pay scale was to remove the anomaly, as LPA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -9- LPA No. 952 of 2012 (O&M) case fell under the definition of 'anomalies', this has been granted 'in view of the nature of duties performed by them and the fact that the Head Masters/High School, had been granted pay scale in the Central Government'. It could not be disputed before us that in so far as such Head Masters/Head Mistresses of High School in the Central Government are concerned, they were granted pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
10. Thus, we find that the government/appellants itself treated it as anomaly and wanted to remove the same, which had to be given w.e.f. 01.01.1996. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.
(A.K. SIKRI) CHIEF JUSTICE (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 31.10.2012 Amodh