Himachal Pradesh High Court
Virender Kumar & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 14 June, 2024
( 2024:HHC:3434 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 6688 of 2020 .
Reserved on: 23.05.2024 Decided on: 14.06.2024 Virender Kumar & Ors.
.....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors.
.....Respondents.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat,
Additional Advocate
General, for respondent
No. 1/State.
Mr. Maan Singh,
Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 to 4.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 was filed before 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 2 the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing the order dated 22.05.2018 rejecting of the case of the .
applicants (Annexure A-7) and proceedings of the meeting of Service Committee dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure A-8), more particularly item No. 23.2 of the same; directions to the respondents to grant same pay scale alongwith grade pay after completion of two years of service as Data Entry Operators on the same analogy, as is being given to the employees of the clerical cadre after the completion of two years service; to introduce promotional avenues to the applicants in the category of clerical cadre for the posts of Junior Assistants/Senior Assistants/Superintendent Grade-I and Grade-II, to change the nomenclature of the post of Data Entry Operator to that of Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator on the analogy of combined seniority of Clerk-
cum-Data Entry Operators and to carry out the suitable amendments in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Assistants/Senior Assistants by introducing the category of Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator.
::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 32. It was asserted that the applicants are working as Data Entry Operators with the respondents. They were .
recruited by following the due process of law after issuing a proper advertisement and holding a competitive written test. The minimum qualification for the post of Data Entry Operator is 10+2 from a recognized Board/Institution and one-year diploma in Computer and Software from a recognized Institution with a desirable two years working experience in a reputed Institution. The essential qualification for the post of Clerk is that a person should have passed 10+2 examination or its equivalent from a recognized Institution. The Data Entry Operators have higher qualifications. The pay scale of both posts is ₹5910- 20,200/- + ₹1900/- grade pay at the initial stage. The contractual emoluments of both these posts are also exactly similar, i.e. ₹7810/-. However, the Clerks are entitled to a pay scale of ₹ 10,300-34,800/- + ₹ 3200/- grade pay after two years of regular service. This pay scale has not been granted to the Data Entry Operators. This is a clear-cut case ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 4 of anomaly because the nature of the work assigned to both categories is the same.
.
3. The applicants filed an Original Application before the Administrative Tribunal, which was decided on 21.11.2017 with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation as per the law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicants through r their 2-3 duly authorized representatives.
4. A meeting under the Chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary (Environment, Science and Technology) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was conducted. The Committee went through every aspect of the matter and recommended that the Data Entry Operator be re-designated as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator and the pay scale of ₹ 10300-34800/- + ₹ 3200/- grade pay may be granted to them after completion of two years of regular service. It was also recommended that promotional avenues be granted to them on the analogy of the clerk in both the cadres. A common seniority list be drawn of Clerks ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 5 and Clerks-cum-Data Entry Operators. The matter was placed before the Board of Directors and the Service .
Committee. The Service Committee consisted of two members, who were part of the meeting dated 13.12.2017 and the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance). However, the Service Committee rejected the applicants' claim because the pay scale and Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the categories were different. No plausible reason was assigned for rejecting the claim. The actions of the respondents are contrary to the basic principles of service jurisprudence.
The nature of the work of both the categories is the same.
They have the same initial pay scale at the time of the recruitment. The qualification for the post of Data Entry Operator is higher than the qualification for the post of Clerk and no discrimination can be made against the Data Entry Operator while granting the pay scale and the promotional avenue. Earlier in 2015, the Sub Committee on Service Matters had decided that 13 posts of Clerks would be filled after designating them as Data Entry Operators but this decision was reversed with the condition that a person ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 6 to be engaged as a Clerk should be computer literate. The Government of Himachal Pradesh follows the Punjab .
pattern in the grant of pay scale. The Data Entry Operators are getting ₹10300-34800/- + ₹ 3200/- grade pay in Punjab in all the Departments. The Data Entry Operators are being recruited and are being shown as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operators, whereas the respondents have adopted a different pattern.
r The Service Committee committed a grave illegality while rejecting the claim of the applicants.
The applicants have limited posts of Database Analyst as the promotional channel. The Clerks have also been made eligible for the promotion to this post. The Clerk is a bigger cadre and their promotional channel has bigger sanctioned strength i.e. Junior Assistant/Senior Assistant. The larger promotion channel should have been made available to the applicants as well; therefore, the application was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.
5. The application was opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. However, it was admitted that the earlier Original Application was disposed ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 7 of with a direction to consider the representation of the applicants as per the law and the Service Committee had .
rejected the applicants' claim. It was asserted that the cadres of Data Entry Operators and Clerk are separate. They have different Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Their qualifications are different. The Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Finance added certain categories of posts in the schedule of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post Wise Revised Scale) Rules, 2012 and included Clerks at serial No. 15, who were entitled to the pay band of ₹ 10300-34000/-+ ₹ 3200/- grade pay after two years of regular service. The post of Data Entry Operator was not included in the notification. All proposals of the Boards and Corporations concerning the sanction of staff, revision of pay scale/upgradation and allied matters are required to be examined by the Committee consisting of Finance Secretary, Administrative Secretary, Secretary-
cum-DIF and Managing Director of the Corporation/Board before such proposals are placed before the Board of Directors. Hence, the matter was placed before the Service ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 8 Committee, which rejected the same. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Database Analysts include promotion .
from the cadre of Clerks after five years of service and having a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science/Computer Application or Bachelor's Degree in Science/ Computer/Commerce/Bachelor's Degree with one elective subjects as Mathematics/Economics/Statistics from a recognized University with a post-graduate diploma in Computer Application from a recognized University/Institution. No promotion to the post of Database Analyst has been made from the clerical cadre till the date of filing the reply. The requirement of service for promotion to the post of Database Analyst from the cadre of Data Entry Operator has been amended to three years instead of five years by the Service Committee. The feeder category for the post of Junior Assistant/Senior Assistant is Clerk. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed. It was ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 9 asserted that the cadre of Rajinder Singh was changed on medical grounds. Similarly, a cadre of Environment .
Planners, Senior Environment Planner and Senior Project Consultant was also changed. The services of the Data Entry Operator and Clerk are inter-changeable and cannot be distinguished while making the promotions or granting the pay scale. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed.
7. I have heard Mr Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr H.S. Rawat, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State and Mr Maan Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4.
8. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the cadre of Clerk and Data Entry Operator are similar and cannot be distinguished while granting the pay scale and the promotional avenues.
Ordinarily, it is the prerogative of the employer to grant the pay scale and promotional avenues and the Court cannot interfere with the same, but when there is an anomaly and ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 10 like are not being treated like, the Court has the power to issue the directions to rectify the anomaly. He relied upon .
by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association and others, Civil Appeal No.632/2008 decided on 18.8.2017 and Arindam Chattopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal Civil Appeal No.2521/13 decided on 13.3.2013; judgments of this Court in Durga Dass Thakur Vs State of H.P CWP-T No.4908/2008 decided on 4.8.2009, Hari Kishan Vs State of H.P. in CWP No.1497/2021 decided on 18.10.2022 and Mukesh Minhas Vs State of H.P. in CWP-T No.2114 of 2008 decided on 3.11.2010.
9. Mr. H.S. Rawat, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1-State submitted that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Data Entry Operator and Clerk are different. Their promotional avenues are also different. They constitute two different categories and cannot be equated. The Service Committee had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners. Hence, he prayed that the petition be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 1110. Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 adopted the submissions of Mr. H.S. .
Rawat and submitted that equal pay cannot be claimed without showing that the services of two cadres are equivalent in all respects. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
11 I have given considerable thought to the submissions at Bar and have gone through the records carefully.
12 It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association 2023 SCC Online SC 173 that the power of judicial review of the High Courts in the matter of classification of posts and determination of the pay scale is limited. The question of the equation of posts and salaries is a complex matter and should be left to an expert body unless there is cogent material to formally conclude that a grave error has crept in while fixing the pay scale. It was observed as under:-
"9. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it deserves to ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 12 be noted that the power of judicial review of the High Courts in the matter of classification of posts and determination of pay scale is no more res integra. It has been consistently held by this Court in .
a plethora of decisions that the equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was necessary to undo the injustice.
10. In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989) 1 SCC 121, while answering the questions as to whether the Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad were entitled to pay scale admissible to the Section Officers and whether the creation of two grades with different scales in the cadre of Bench Secretaries who were doing the same and similar work was violative of the right to have "equal pay for equal work". This Court observed as under:--
"18. The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or the volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be differences in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but the quality may be different and cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the executive Government. It must be ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 13 determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and .
responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept it. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."
11. The afore-stated ratio was followed by this Court in Union of India v. Makhan Chandra Roy (1997) 11 SCC 182. Again, in Secretary, Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Association 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153, the claim of Sub- Registrars of West Bengal Registration Service claiming parity in pay scale with Munsiffs on the basis that Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted status, was examined by this Court. It was elaborately observed in para 12 as under: --
"12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time- consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 14 expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating the performances of .
different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include
(i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v.) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to coordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broad banding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalisation of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily, a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g.,
(i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 15 service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v.) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of .
duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed r as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the equation of posts and the equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice."
12. In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321, a three-judge Bench in a referred matter considered whether the doctrine of "equal pay for ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 16 equal work", was an abstract doctrine, and observed thus:--
"19. Having considered the authorities and .
the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh [(1996) 11 SCC 77: 1997 SCC (L&S) 210: AIR 1997 SC 1788 :
(1997) 2 LLJ 667], Tilak Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 123: 2003 SCC (L&S) 828], Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology [(2003) 5 SCC 188: 2003 SCC (L&S) 645 : (2003) 2 LLJ 968] and Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347: 2004 SCC (L&S) 225] lay down the correct law.
Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 17 doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by .
a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by the competent authority cannot be challenged.
A classification based on differences in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative differences as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event, the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 18 things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court, the court must first see that there are necessary averments and .
there is proof. If the High Court is, on the basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant facto₹"
13. In Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. T.V.L.N Mallikarjuna Rao (2015) 3 SCC 653, this Court reiterated the said position:--
"26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. There may be more grades than one in a particular service."
14. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts, therefore, should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercises for job evaluation after ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 19 taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of .
powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to the longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structures and grade in a particular service."
13 It was further held that where the Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the services are different, the duties and responsibilities of both posts are different and promotional avenues are different, the pay scales cannot be equated. It was observed as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 20"15. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as per the SRO 367 .
dated 08.12.1996, as amended by SRO 246 dated 21.11.2002, whereas the Recruitment Rules governing the CTOs (Design) are as per the SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982. The probation period in the case of CTOs is longer than that of JDOs. The duties and responsibilities of both posts are different and the promotional avenues also have different durations and different criteria. There was not a single error, much less a grave error pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate. Mr Khurshid, in the fixation of the pay scales for the JDOs and CTOs, which would have justified the interference of the Tribunal."
14 In the present case, it is undisputed that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the two posts are different. It is also undisputed that the promotional avenues of the posts are different and that is why a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for providing similar avenues as are being provided to the Clerks, therefore, two criteria of equivalence are different.
15 It was submitted that the posts of Data Entry Operator and Clerk are inter-changeable. Reliance was placed upon the orders (Annexure A/15), wherein some of the Data Entry Operators have been allocated the work of the Clerk. to submit that the nature of the duties is similar.
::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 21It is true that the notifications have been issued asking the Data Entry Operator to look after the work of the Clerk but .
this is only one of the circumstances necessitated by the leave of some of the officials. Further, it is not known whether it was a permanent arrangement or a stop-gap arrangement. Therefore, much cannot be made out of the notifications.
16. A r heavy reliance was placed upon the recommendation made by the Committee. A similar argument was addressed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association (supra) and it was held that noting is an opinion of the officer and cannot be treated to be a decision of the government. It was observed as under:-
"16. Much emphasis was placed by the learned senior advocate Mr Khurshid on the noting made by the Officer of the Naval Department in the file recommending the pay scale of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, however, it may be noted that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer, and by no stretch of imagination such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government (2009) 15 SCC 705.
17. The powers of judicial review in matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 22 and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness .
is established by the aggrieved party."
17 The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Senior Vocational Staff (supra) shows that two categories were being treated equally before the 4th Punjab Pay Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no change in the duties of the Lecturer and a Vocational Master. Therefore, it was not permissible to carry out the pay revision to create a disparity in the pay of two categories. It was further held that they were being selected by a common process and a common advertisement was issued. They were teaching the same classes. Therefore, no distinction could be made.
18. In the present case, admittedly the recruitment is being made differently and there is nothing to show that pay scales were the same before the pay revision by a Pay Commission. Therefore, this judgment does not apply to the present case.
19. Similarly, in Chattopadhyay's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that ACDPOs were ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 23 transferred and posted as CDPOs to work in ICDS and this was not a stop-gap arrangement for a few months rather .
they were continuing with the duties for about six years on the date of filing of the petition and for fourteen years on the date of the decision. Hence, a direction was issued to grant them the salary and allowance for the post of CDPO. It is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a category of employees was being asked to discharge the duties of a higher category without the equivalence of the pay scale continuously for years together.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that had it been a stop-
gap arrangement or an additional charge was given for a limited period, the higher scale could not have been claimed. This shows that the appointment should be for a longer period to claim the benefit, which is missing in the present case.
20. Since the matter is concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association (supra) therefore, it is unnecessary to refer to the judgments of this Court.
::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS 2421. No other point was urged.
22. Therefore, the matter regarding the pay and .
promotion of the petitioners is not amenable to judicial review as there is no arbitrariness in the present matter.
Consequently, the present petition cannot be allowed and the same is dismissed.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 14th June, 2024 (mamta/veena) ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:35:42 :::CIS