Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1992 DIGILAW 886 (SC)

State Of H. P. v. Pran Nath Anand

1992-10-23

L.M.SHARMA, N.P.SINGH, S.RANGANATHAN

body1992
(1) THIS appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh for setting aside an order of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") holding that petitioners-respondents, who are the Project Officers, are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-1,700, as is allowed to the Project Officers in the State of Punjab. A further direction has been given that petitioner-respondent I shall be entitled to the said pay scale with effect from 1/04/1981 and petitioner-respondent 2 with effect from October (sic), 1981, the date of his appointment. (2) THE tribunal was of the view that the State of Himachal Pradesh invariably followed the Punjab pattern of scales of pay with regard to various categories of employees in the State and as soon as there was any increase in the pay scales of the employees in the State of Punjab, the same automatically became applicable to their counterparts in the State of Himachal Pradesh. As the pay scale of Project Officers in the State of Punjab was Rs. 1200-1700, according to the tribunal, there was no justification on the part of the State of Himachal Pradesh not to give the same scale of pay to the respondents who were also Project Officers. (3) IT appears that an office memorandum dated 2/11/1979 was issued by the State government saying: "(T]HE State government has adopted the Punjab pattern of scales of pay for its employees. To conform to that pattern, the scales of pay of various services which are not manned by the All India Services Officers were last revised from 1/02/1968 or Febr 1/02/1971 and Subsequent dates. The Punjab government, on the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, have further revised the pay scales of their services with effect from 1/01/1978. To conform to that pattern, the scales of pay of various services which are not manned by the All India Services Officers were last revised from 1/02/1968 or Febr 1/02/1971 and Subsequent dates. The Punjab government, on the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, have further revised the pay scales of their services with effect from 1/01/1978. Accordingly the governor, Himachal Pradesh, under Article 309 of the Constitution and proviso to sub- rule (1 of Rule 10 of the Vidhan Sabha (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 insofar as services/posts of Vidhan Sabha Secretariat are concerned, is pleased to order revision of pay scales of various services/posts in Himachal Pradesh with effect from the 1st day of January 1978, as shown in the attached schedules...." (4) A comparative chart of the employees of different categories working under the National Adult Education Programme in the States of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, "which was produced before the tribunal, is as follows: Posts Pay scale in Punjab Pay scale in Himachal Pradesh 1. Dy. Director of Adult 1200-1850 1200-1850 Edu. 2. Distt. Adult Edu. Officer — 825-1580 (w.e.f. August 1981) 3. Project Officer 1200-1700 700-1300 (w.e.f. April 1981) 4. Adult Literacy 620-1200 620-1200 Supervisor 5. Superintendents (GI) 825-1580 825-1580 6. Assistants 570-1080 570-1080 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Assistants 570-1080 570-1080 7. Clerks/Jr. Accountants 400-600 400-600 8. Drivers 400-600 400-600 9. Peons (Class IV) 300-430 300-430 10. . Educators/Instructors 100 (fixed p.m.) 100 (fixed p.m.)" (5) ON behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that except the pay scale of Project Officer, the pay scales of all other categories of employees working under the said Adult Education Programme in the two States are the same. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that the State of Himachal Pradesh has adopted the Punjab pattern of the scales of pay for its employees and except Project Officers the pay scales of all other categories of employees working under the Adult Education Programme in the two States are same, directed that even the respondents be paid the same scale of pay which is being paid to the Project Officers in the State of Punjab. (6) ON behalf of the appellant-State it was pointed out that the tribunal has overlooked the fact that the posts of Project Officers in the State of Himachal Pradesh were created as early as in the year 1975 when the scheme was introduced, whereas the posts of Project Officers in the State of Punjab were created in April 1981. As such, the office memorandum dated 2/11/1979 referred to above has no bearing so far the grievance made on behalf of the respondents is concerned. It was also pointed out that in the State of Punjab there is no other hierarchy of posts between the Deputy Director of Adult Education and the Project Officer, whereas in the State of Himachal Pradesh between the Deputy Director of Adult Education and the Project Officer there is post of District Adult Education Officer, The pay scale of District Adult Education Officer was Rs. 825-1580 with effect from August 1981. In this background, it is not possible to allow the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1700 with effect from 1/04/1981 to the respondents who were Project Officers but below the rank of District Adult Education Officer. (7) IT cannot be disputed that if the direction given by the tribunal is implemented, then an anomaly will be created because the District Adult Education Officers shall be getting the revised scale of Rs. 825-1580 whereas the Project Officers in the State of Himachal Pradesh shall be getting the revised scale of Rs. 1200-1700. The scale of pay which has been determined in respect of the respondents is virtually the scale of pay of the Deputy Director of Adult Education which was Rs. 1200-1850 on the relevant date. (8) ACCORDING to us, a State government can have separate pay scales for its employees irrespective of the fact that a different scale of pay exists in any other State for similar posts. It need not be pointed out that normally for similar posts and similar jobs there should be uniformity in the pay scale but there being difference in the economic condition in different States, it cannot be held that it is not permissible to have different scales and conditions of service for employees of the different States. It need not be pointed out that normally for similar posts and similar jobs there should be uniformity in the pay scale but there being difference in the economic condition in different States, it cannot be held that it is not permissible to have different scales and conditions of service for employees of the different States. (9) THE tribunal should have examined as to whether the office memorandum dated 2/11/1979 was applicable even in cases where posts are created later in the other State as has happened in the present case. The post of Project Officer in Punjab was created in 1981, whereas the post of Project Officer in Himachal Pradesh had been created in the year 1975 with a particular pay scale which is being revised from time to time. Whether on basis of the office memorandum aforesaid or any other decision taken by the State of Himachal Pradesh, the pay scale of existing posts has to be revised no sooner similar or corresponding posts are created in the State of Punjab should have been examined in detail by the tribunal. We may also point out that the Tribunals order creates an anomaly because the District Adult Education Officer who seems to be higher in the hierarchy will get a smaller scale than the Project Officer. This also is an aspect that needs further examination. (10) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State pointed out that the posts of Project Officers in the State of Punjab, which were created in the year 1981, were higher in grade and the respondents cannot claim the same pay scale. (11) ACCORDING to us, the issues involved require deeper consideration on production of proper materials on behalf of the parties. (12) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed. The order of the tribunal is set aside. The tribunal shall enable the parties, if they so desire, to file supplementary affidavits in support of their respective claims and to produce all relevant documents in support of such claims. The tribunal shall hear the parties and dispose of the application filed on behalf of the respondents in accordance with law at an early date. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no orders as to costs.