M. D. Joshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh — 1990 DIGILAW 43 (ALL)

JUDGMENT S.C.Mattrar, J. 1. The petitioner, M. D. Joshi is Stenographer In the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and he seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the Government order dated 15th June, 1982, Annexure- V and a writ of Mandamus to command the opposite parties to allow him the scale of pay recommended by the pay Commission appointed by the State Government which submitted its report in the year 1979-80. In making these prayers the petitioner invokes Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution. The petition was originally filed by 24 persons. When it came up before a Division Bench on 19th July, 1982 all the petitioners, except petitioner no. 1, withdrew from the petition and a statement to that effect was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners which is incorporated on the reverse side of page 1 of the petition. The same day the Bench directed deletion of the names of the petitioners 2 to 24 from the array of petitioners. Subsequently CM.A. No 6096 (w) of 1985 was moved on behalf of 22 persons for their impleadment in the petition as petitioners 2 to 23. Out of these 22, 18 were those who were petitioners in the petition as originally filed but withdrew therefrom subsequently. The application was, however, rejected by court's order dated 11th July, 1985. The petition, therefore, survives at the instance of one person only, namely M. D. Joshi. Now a few facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be noticed. 2. Giving historical perspective of the pay scales of Stenographers and Head Clerks in Non-Secretariat Offices, the petitioner points out that prior to 1965 Stenographers drew salary in higher scale than the scale in which the Head Clerks drew salary but now the position is just the reverse. It is pointed out that prior to 1965 the scale of pay of Stenographers was Rs. 100-240 while that of Head Clerks it was Rs. 80-240. However, the Head Clerks additionally get special pay at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. This additional payment was not admissible to Stenographers. As a result of the report of the Pay Rationalisation Committee the scales of pay of both the posts became identical from 1965. The pay scales of both the posts were revised in 1973 and both were placed in the scale of Rs. 300-500. 30/- per month. This additional payment was not admissible to Stenographers. As a result of the report of the Pay Rationalisation Committee the scales of pay of both the posts became identical from 1965. The pay scales of both the posts were revised in 1973 and both were placed in the scale of Rs. 300-500. The State Government appointed Pay Commission which submitted its report in the year 1979- 80, relevant extract from which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure III. In this report the Commission recommended the scale of Rs. 515-840 for Stenographers in place of the existing scale of Rs 300-500. The Commission also recommended the senior scale of Rs. 622-940 for these Stenographers. It may be mentioned that the Stenographers and three scales of pay, viz., Rs. 250-425, Rs. 300-500 and Rs. 400-600, for the scales of Rs. 250-425 and Rs. 400-600 the Commission recommended the scales of Rs 515-840 and Rs. 570-1070 respectively and no senior scale was recommended for those placed in these scales. There were three scales of pay for the post of Head Clerks, viz. Rs. 300-500, Rs. 350-500 and 400-550. The Commission recommended a uniform scale of Rs. 515-860 with no senior scale. 3. From the above it would be seen that the Commission gave preferential treatment to Stenographers. The Commission justified this preferential treatment by observing- "Stenographers' job is a specified one and good Stenographers are not easily available. We are, therefore, recommending liberal scales for Stenographers in the field whose work and qualifications as well as level for responsibilities are, in most of the cases, not less than those of their counterparts in the Secretariat, P.S.C., Board of Revenue, High Court etc." 4. The State Government did not agree with the preferential treatment given by the Commission to Stenographers vis-a-vis the Head Clerks and reversed the same. For Head Clerks the Government by its impugned order dated 15th June, 1982 approved the scale of Rs. 570-1100 instead of Rs. 515- 860 recommended by the Commission and in place of the ordinary and the senior scales of Rs. 515-840 and Rs. 622-940 recommended by the Commission for Stenographers, it approved the scales of Rs. 515-860 and Rs. 570-1100 respectively. The consequence of the above Government order is that at the minimum of the time scale the Stenographers do not enjoy parity with the . 515-840 and Rs. 622-940 recommended by the Commission for Stenographers, it approved the scales of Rs. 515-860 and Rs. 570-1100 respectively. The consequence of the above Government order is that at the minimum of the time scale the Stenographers do not enjoy parity with the . Head Clerks although they enjoy that parity at the maximum of the time scale but this parity is enjoyed only when they get promoted to the senior ' scale. 5. The above action of the Government in not accepting the recommendation of the Commission is described by the petitioner as arbitrary and discriminatory involving infraction of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner adopts the reasoning of the Commission and asserts that Stenographers are more skilled and more qualified in as much as in addition to the qualifications possessed by Head Clerks, they have additionally to learn the art of taking dictation in short-hand and the science of typing. At the minimum the action is alleged to be violative of Article 39 (d). 6. The petition has been contested by the State of U. P. on whose behalf its Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies has filed counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that a Head Clerk is more burdened with work than Stenographer and that the former besides routine office work also looks after the administration of office/section, it is further stated that if a Stenographer has to learn short-hand and typing, the Head Clerk gains experience by working in lower category. It has been averred that the pay scales of Stenographers and Head Clerks have been fixed taking into account the nature of duties performed by each and the burden of work and responsibilities of both the posts. It has been affirmed that while the Head Clerk have the uniform scale of Rs. 370-1100, Stenographers have three scale of pay, viz. Rs. 470-735, Rs. 515-860 and Rs. 570-1100 and thus promotional avenues are available to them. In our opinion the writ petition is entirely misconceived and on petitioners' own pleading there is no infraction of any of the three articles of the Constitution pressed into service by the petitioner. Article 39 (d) requires the State to direct its policy towards securing "equal pay for equal work". If the work is unequal the provision will not be attracted. Article 39 (d) requires the State to direct its policy towards securing "equal pay for equal work". If the work is unequal the provision will not be attracted. The petitioners own case is that the nature of duties of the Head Clerk and Stenographer is different. The difference pointed out by the Pay Commission has been adopted by the petitioner by stating in paragraph 6 of the petition as follows- "the difference between the Stenographers and Head Clerks has been emphasised in as much as the Stenographers have been stated to be burdened with greater responsibilities than those of the Head Clerks." 7. The extract from the Pay Commission report which has been reproduced in Annexure-III to the writ petition does not justify petitioner's conclusion. The Commission has not stated that the Stenographers are burdened with work of greater responsibility than Head Clerks. In fact in the extracted portion the Commission has made no comparison between the work of a Stenographer) and the work of a Head Clerk. The Commission has made comparison between the work of Stenographers in the field offices or Non- Secretariat Offices and in the Secretariat Offices like the Secretariat itself, Public Service Commission, Board of Revenue and High Court. The Commission has indeed observed that the wort: of a Stenographer is a specialised one but therefrom it does not become a work of greater responsibility. In fact in making recommendation of higher scale for Stenographers the Commission appears to have been impressed by the fact that good Stenographers are not easily available. If there is dearth of really good Stenographers there may be justification for the Administration to prescribe higher scale for that post in order to attract good Stenographers but that is for the Administration to consider. Merely because there is dearth of good Stenographers will not lead to the conclusion that Stenographers perform duties of greater responsibility. 8. The commission has also observed that work of a Stenographer is of specialised nature. It is indeed a work of specialised nature in the sense that every body cannot take a dictation in short-hand or type out a script. To acquire specialty in these arts or sciences, one has indeed to study these arts or science like an electrician has to learn the science of electricity in order to be an electrician. But thereby a Stenographer does not become superior of others. To acquire specialty in these arts or sciences, one has indeed to study these arts or science like an electrician has to learn the science of electricity in order to be an electrician. But thereby a Stenographer does not become superior of others. Once the science of short-hand and type-writing have been learnt the work done by a Stenographer is more or less of mechanical nature. He is not required to show any originality or initiative or tact. He has just to take dictation and type it our or write it out in long-hand. As against the above, the work of a Head Clerk may require originality, initiative and tact. He may have to prepare notes for his superior officers and examine and approve the notes (sic) preparing or approving these notes he may have to refer orders or memoranda issued by the State Government or by his superior officers. He may have to invite the attention of his superiors to previous precedents. He may in appropriate cases even suggest action to be taken. For all this, experience is required and it is stated in the counter affidavit that a person is appointed to the post of Head Clerk after having worked in a lower category. Working in lower category brings experience to him. As Head Clerk he exercises supervision over the staff posted under him. Thus he exercises administrative or supervisory duties also as stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. 9. From the above it will be seen that the nature of duties performed by the Stenographers and Head Clerks is entirely different and the Stenographers can neither claim parity with Head Clerks nor they can legitimately claim that they perform duties of higher responsibilities. In fact, as discussed above, the Head Clerks perform duties of higher responsibilities. For the discussion herein, even articles 14 and 16 cannot be said to have been Vilated by the State Government when it prescribed a uniform higher scale of pay for the Head Clerks. It may be mentioned that the higher scale (Rs. S70-1100) is reached by Stenographers also when they are placed in that scale. It is not that the scale prescribed for the Head Clerk is not available to the Stenographers at all. 10. Pay Commission is merely a recommending body. Its recommendations are not binding on the Government. It may be mentioned that the higher scale (Rs. S70-1100) is reached by Stenographers also when they are placed in that scale. It is not that the scale prescribed for the Head Clerk is not available to the Stenographers at all. 10. Pay Commission is merely a recommending body. Its recommendations are not binding on the Government. Accordingly the Government cannot be said to have acted illegally when it does not accept the recommendations of the PAY Commission or accepts the same with modification, as done in the present case. It may also be pointed out that apart from relying on historical background and observation of the PAY Commission the petitioner has not placed in record any material from which it may be gathered that Stenographers perform duties which are heavier either in terms of quantum of work or in terms of responsibility. Similarly he has not placed on record any material from which it may be inferred that both perform duties of equal nature. The mere fact that at one point of time the Stenographers were getting salary in a scale higher than the scale of Head Glerks or that at another point of time their scales were at par is not sufficient to uphold the plea canvased by the petitioner. In taking the above view, we have taken note of the following decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court which were cited before us- (1) State of U. P. v. J. P Chaurasia, 1989 (1) SCC 121 , and (2) C. R. Seshan v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1989 SC 1287 . 11. In view of that above, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the opposite parties. Interim order, if any, shall stand discharged. Petition dismissed.