Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 606 (RAJ)

Nav Ratan Kumawat v. Rajasthan Housing Board

2001-04-13

J.C.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners at the time of filing of the writ petitions were working as Supervisor (Sr) in the Rajasthan Housing Board, which post from having been so redesignated from the post of Senior Munshi. The petitioners are aggrieved against the impugned order dated 1.12.1995 and order dated 20.7.1996/25.7.1995 by which order it was ordered that the Supervisor (Sr.) are to be given the benefit of the order dated 13.11.1995 from 25.11.1995, which benefit was earlier granted to the petitioners with effect from 15.8.1991 on account of revision of the pay scale. Vide order dated 13.11.1995, copy of which is attached as Annexure-1, it was mentioned that the Assistants and Senior Munshis had been placed in the pay scale No. 9 (as per the revision of pay scales of 1989), but subsequently the Assistants had been granted the scale Nos. 10 in place of 9 vide order dated 19.12.1989. The scales of Senior Munshi re-designated as Supervisor (Sr.) remained the same. By the order dated 30.1.1990 passed by the State Government the Supervisor Scale had been fixed as 1400-2360. In the order dated 13.11.1995, it was mentioned that the Supervisor (Sr.) shall be granted the pay scale of 10 i.e. 1400-2360 in place of 1200-2050, pay scale No. 9. Vide Annexure-2 the change mentioned in Annexure-1 was made effective from 16.8.1991. However Annexure-2 was immediately modified vide Annexure-3 to the extent that instead of the pay scale No. 10 having been granted from 16.8.1991 it was to be made applicable from 25.11.1995 and no arrears of any pay was to be paid. Continuation to the letter Annexure-3, order Annexure-4 dated 20.7.1996 was also passed for effecting the recovery of arrears, if paid. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that per order Annexure-1 dated 13.11.1995, it mentioned therein, that the pay scale of Senior Munshi were equivalent to that of the Assistant and if the Assistants pay scale had been revised to pay scale No. 10, the petitioners holding the post of Supervisor (Sr.) would also be treated equivalent on the revision of pay scales made the year 1989 and it should have been done from 30.1,1990 and, therefore, withdrawing of the said benefit vide Annexure-3 as per the letter written by the Commissioner Housing Board was neither justified nor warranted and has been passed by the authority who was not competent to pass the said order. 3. In reply (one copy of the reply has been placed on record in Civil Writ Petition No. 3369/96), it is stated that the post of Senior Munshi was a promotional post from Munshi Grade I, Senior Munshi was redesignated as Suprevisor (Sr.) by the Board on 13.7.1993 with the condition that the change of designation will not effect or entitle the employees for claiming any parity of pay etc. as was being paid to the Supervisors (Sr.) in PWD, for the reason that the persons occupying the post of Supervisor even lower to the post of Supervisor (Sr.) in the PWD were having minimum qualification of Diploma in Engineering and work of the Supervisor (Sr.) in the PWD was different than the work being done by such category of persons in the Board as per Annexure-R/2 attached with the written statement. Because of the aforesaid misconception, ultimately a decision was taken to reconsider the matter at the level of Personnel Department and, therefore, the impugned order was necessitated. It is the case of the respondent that only because of the reason that the redesignation of the post was affected, that would not entitle the petitioners to claim the same pay as in PWD Department. As mentioned above, the qualifications of PWD were different for the post of Supervisor (Sr.). Not only the qualifications are higher but the responsibility and work is also different. However, it is not denied that the scale of Supervisor (Sr.) was revised to 1400-2360. 4. The only point of difference to be determined is whether the scale should be made applicable from the date as mentioned in the impugned order Annexure-3 or Annexure-2. 5. Counsel for the petitioner relies on a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Premlata Gaur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2001(1) WLC (Raj.) 287 to the effect that if some excess salary is paid to the teachers and without there being any mistake of the teachers and the recovery against certain teachers having been dropped, it was held that it should not be proper to recover any excess amount already paid to them in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1995(1) SCC 149 and AIR 1997 SC 277. 6. In Gabrial Sarer Fernandes and other v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 1995 Supp. 6. In Gabrial Sarer Fernandes and other v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 49 , while holding that the higher pay scale for Talatis and Village Accountants possessing BSLC qualification and lower pay scale for those without such qualification was not discriminatory, but even though the appellant who were not eligible for higher scale and for the reason that they had retired, payment made to them in higher scale during the service period was ordered not to be recovered. 7. In the case of Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India and others, AIR 1994 SC 2480 , where the basic pay was reduced without affording any opportunity to the Railway employees, it was held that it was the flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the appellant had been made to suffer financial loss without being heard. 8. On the same analogy, counsel also relies on Supreme Court judgment in the case of Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapur and others v. Shri L.N. Keshri and others, 1975(3) SCC 1 . In the case of Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 even holding that there was no scope for applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and further holding that there was no arbitrariness in fixing of the different pay scales, it was held that the scale once had been granted without there being any fault of the employee, it was not be appropriate to recover the arrears, which has already been paid. 9. It is not disputed that the Supervisors (Sr.) had been granted pay scale of 1400-2360 but the date of application had been changed from earlier date to 25.11.1995. Annexure-1 was passed in favour of the petitioners basing it on the grade being given to the Supervisor (Sr.) in the State of Rajasthan from the date mentioned therein. So far the revision of grade is concerned, it has been kept intact and has been maintained but only the date of application has been changed. From the order impugned Annexure-3, nothing has been shown as to why the date of applicability was changed. Even though in the written statement it is mentioned that the scale of Supervisor (Sr.) as applicable to the State of Rajasthan was not applicable to the Supervisor (Sr.) in the Housing Board, but the same scale has been adopted. From the order impugned Annexure-3, nothing has been shown as to why the date of applicability was changed. Even though in the written statement it is mentioned that the scale of Supervisor (Sr.) as applicable to the State of Rajasthan was not applicable to the Supervisor (Sr.) in the Housing Board, but the same scale has been adopted. Even though in the impugned order the scale remained the same, but as has been changed is the date of applicability, meaning thereby the respondent itself admits that the petitioners have been given the scale of 1400-2360, which might be the scale in the State of Rajasthan and in principle they have agreed for the equality of the scale and if it be so, it is not understandable as to why and in what circumstances, nor it has been brought in the written statement, the applicability of said scale was changed from prior date to be effective from 25.11.1995 and even the orders of recovery of pay had been passed. In my opinion, the respondent ought to have clarified the matter in their written statement for showing any justification for withdrawing the benefit of the scale for limited period only. The petitioners were .... to know the reasons which had not been given by the respondent nor the court has been taken into confidence to show as to why the Commissioner, Housing Board was of the opinion that the said scale is to be made applicable from 25.11.1995 and not from prior date from 16.8.1991 from which it had already been sanctioned and when even the arrears have been paid. 10. I also fully agree with the contention the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the authorities mentioned above that there was no fault of the petitioners when such scale so granted from the earlier date and once it has been paid, and without there being any justified reason if the Commission had changed the date applicability, the petitioners should not be to suffer and no recovery should be effected. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, I allow the writ petitions, quash the order Annexure-3 and all subsequent order Annexure-4. No orders as to costs. *******