Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1505 (PNJ)

Ram Chander v. State Of Haryana

2003-11-03

M.M.S.BEDI, VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court through the present petition file d under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made in the petition is for the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the stipulation in the letter dated January 7, 2000 issued by the State of Haryana. Vide the aforesaid stipulation, the benefit of the revised pay scales to the Municipal Employees has been ordered to be issued w.e.f. January 1, 1996, but the payment of the arrears has been restricted only from April 1, 1999. A copy of the aforesaid letter dated January 7, 2000 has been appended as Annexure P8 with the petition. 2. The petitioners are working on various posts in the Municipal Committee, Jind. Subsequently, w.e.f. April 2, 1993, they were sent on deputation to the Department of P.W.D. (Public Health), Haryana under the Executive Engineer, Jind. 3. The petitioners have claimed that the State Government of Haryana has been revising the pay scales of their employees working under them on the recommendations of the various Pay Commissioners and the reports submitted by the Anomalies Committee. Whenever the pay scales of the employees of the State Government were revised, the consequential revision was also made in the pay scale of the Municipal employees, as well as the employees of the Improvement Trust. On July 7, 1969 the State Government revised the pay scales of their employees, but a corresponding increase in the pay scales of the Municipal employees was not granted. The matter was taken to this Court. A Letters Patent Appeal No. 218 of 1970 titled as State of Haryana and Ors. v. The Rohtak Municipal Employees Union and Ors., was decided by this Court on July 27, 1970. After a decision rendered in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal all the Municipal employees through out the State were allowed the revised pay scales, which were admissible to the State Government employees vide the aforesaid notification dated July 7, 1969. A subsequent revision in the pay scales took place in the year 1979 w.e.f. April 1, 1979 and consequently, the pay scales of the Municipal Committee employees were also revised on similar lines w.e.f. April 1, 1979. 4. A subsequent revision in the pay scales took place in the year 1979 w.e.f. April 1, 1979 and consequently, the pay scales of the Municipal Committee employees were also revised on similar lines w.e.f. April 1, 1979. 4. The petitioners have maintained that in the year 1987 again the State Government of Haryana revised the pay scales of its employees w.e.f. January 1, 1986. Vide a communication dated June 3, 1987, the State Government intimated to all the Administrators of the Municipal Committees in the State of Haryana that the Government had decided to permit the Municipal Committees/Faridabad Complex Administration to revise the pay scales of their employees with effect from the aforesaid date i.e. January 1, 1986. In terms of the aforesaid decision of the State Government, the scales of all the Municipal employees in the State of Haryana including that of the petitioners, were revised w.e.f. January 1, 1986. A copy of the aforesaid communication dated June 3, 1987 has been appended as Annexure P2 with the present petition. It has further been averred that there were certain anomalies in the pay scales granted to the employees w.e.f. January 1, 1986. The aforesaid anomalies were removed on the representation from the employees vide a communication dated August 23, 1990. These anomalies were also removed in the case of Municipal Committee employees as well, on the same pattern as was done in the pay scales of the State Government employees. The petitioners have continued to maintain that not only the revision of pay scales, as is admissible to the State Government employees, was always allowed to the Municipal employees as well, but benefits like CCA, HRA, Cycle allowance, DA etc. were allowed at par with the State Government employees. Even the technical posts with the Municipal Committees were granted the similar pay scales as were available to the corresponding technical posts of the State Government employees. 5. On January 7, 1998 the pay scales of the State Government employees were revised w.e.f. January 1, 1996. The revision of the pay scales was effected through the Rules which were known as Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998, which were deemed to have come into force w.e.f. January 1, 1996. 5. On January 7, 1998 the pay scales of the State Government employees were revised w.e.f. January 1, 1996. The revision of the pay scales was effected through the Rules which were known as Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998, which were deemed to have come into force w.e.f. January 1, 1996. On the coming into force of the aforesaid rules, the State Government of Haryana revised the pay scales of its employees and extended the benefit of the revised pay scales to all the employees working even in the Boards/Corporations/ Universities and Government Undertakings. Even the Assured Career Progression Rules, 1998 were made applicable to the employees of the Boards/Corporations/ Universities and Government Undertakings. However, the said revised pay scales were not made applicable to the Municipal employees, including the petitioners. 6. The Municipal employees and the Union of such employees represented to the department. They claimed the similar revised pay scales as had been made available to the State Government employees. Some of the employees approached this Court through a Civil Writ Petition No. 2913 of 1999 for the grant of revised pay scales w.e.f. January 1, 1996. The aforesaid writ petition was admitted. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the State Government revised the pay scales of the Municipal Committee employees also. Such Municipal employees were also granted revised pay scales w.e.f. April 1, 1999. Although the said revised pay scales were ordered to be notionally fixed w.e.f. January 1, 1996. The petitioners have averred that the employees of the Municipal Committees were granted the revised pay scales on the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission Report as were granted to the Haryana Government employees. A copy of the communication dated May 10, 1999 from the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Haryana, Local Government Department to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and all the Presidents of Municipal Committees/Municipal Councils in the State of Haryana, has been appended as Annexure P6 with the petition. It is apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid communication that the pay scales of the Municipal employees were revised as per the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. 7. Another communication dated June 3, 1999 was issued by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Haryana, Local Government Department, whereby Assured career Progression Scales were also granted to the Municipal Committee employees on the lines of Haryana Government. 7. Another communication dated June 3, 1999 was issued by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Haryana, Local Government Department, whereby Assured career Progression Scales were also granted to the Municipal Committee employees on the lines of Haryana Government. Subsequently, on January 7, 2000 another communication was issued by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Haryana, Local Government Department addressed to the Municipal Commissioner, Faridabad and all the Municipal Committees/Municipal Councils in the State of Haryana, whereby it was decided that the pay of the Municipal employees in the revised pay scales/ACP scales be fixed notionally w.e.f. January 1, 1996 or from the date of option as per the provisions of the rules. However, it was also provided that no arrears/benefit on account of notional fixation of pay in the revised scales/ACP scales from January 1, 1996 to March 31, 1999 would be given to those employees and they would be given the benefit of revised pay scales only w.e.f. April 1, 1999. A copy of the communication dated January 7, 2000 has been appended as Annexure P8 with the present petition. 8. The petitioners are now aggrieved against the aforesaid stipulation contained in Annexure P8 whereby the payment of arrears has been restricted only w.e.f. April 1, 1999 and the benefit of the aforesaid arrears for the period January 1, 1996 up till March 31, 1999 has been declined. They have challenged the aforesaid stipulation on the ground of discrimination and arbitrariness. It has further been claimed that the aforesaid stipulation was absolutely without any basis and being irrational was liable to be set aside. The petitioners have further maintained that since the year 1969 all the Municipal employees were getting the similar pay scales as were admissible to the State Government employees and, therefore, there was absolutely no justification to deny them the aforesaid pay scales w.e.f. January 1, 1996. Once their claim for the aforesaid revised pay scales has been accepted by the State Government w.e.f. January 1, 1996, then there was absolutely no justification to deny the payment of the arrears with effect from the aforesaid date. 9. Upon notice of motion issued to the respondents, they have put in appearance. Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2 and respondent No. 3, respectively. The claim of the petitioners has been contested. 9. Upon notice of motion issued to the respondents, they have put in appearance. Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2 and respondent No. 3, respectively. The claim of the petitioners has been contested. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have maintained that as per the Haryana Municipal (Integration, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1982, the service conditions of the Municipal employees were covered under the aforesaid rules. Reliance has been placed by the said respondents on Rule 11(2) wherein it has been provided that the scales of pay of the post in various services shall be as given in Appendix A; provided that the Government may revise the scale of posts in a Service, as it may deem proper from time to time. The aforesaid respondents have further maintained that the revision of the pay scales of the Municipal employees had been sanctioned on the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission but the arrears had been restricted since the aforesaid arrears etc. and the additional burden was to be met by the respective Corporation/Council/ Committee from their own resources and was not the responsibility of the State Government. 10. The Municipal Committee-respondent No. 3 has merely taken the stand that the Municipal Committee by itself had no power to grant its employees the incentives and pay scales equal to the State Government employees since it was only within the competence of the State Government. 11. We have heard Sh. Vikas Chatrath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sh. Girish Agnihotri, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sh. Narender Hooda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 12. Shri Vikas Chatrath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that concededly the Municipal employees in the State of Haryana had always been treated at par with the State Government employees for the purposes of the grant of pay scales. 3 and 4 and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 12. Shri Vikas Chatrath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that concededly the Municipal employees in the State of Haryana had always been treated at par with the State Government employees for the purposes of the grant of pay scales. It has been maintained by Shri Chatrath that in the year 1969, when the State Government did not choose to grant the revised pay scales to the Municipal employees at par with the State Government employees, then the matter was taken to this Court and in view of the decision in LPA No. 218 of 1970, decided on July 27, 1970, all the employees of the Municipal Committee throughout the State were allowed the revised pay scales at par with the State Government employees. According to Shri Chatrath, since the aforesaid date, at the time of all the revisions of pay scales, the Municipal Committee employees were always treated at par with the State Government employees. Shri Chatrath has relied upon various Annexures appended with the writ petition to strengthen his argument. On that basis, Shri Chatrath maintains that there was absolutely no justification for the State Government not to grant originally the revised pay scales to the Municipal Committee employees including the petitioners w.e.f. January 1, 1996. Subsequently, when on a representation made by the Municipal Committee Employees Union, a decision was taken to extend the aforesaid benefit of the revision of pay scales to the Municipal employees w.e.f. January 1, 1996, then there was absolutely no justification to incorporate the stipulation in Annexure P-8 to restrict the payment of the aforesaid arrears only w.e.f. April, 1999. According to Shri Chatrath, the Municipal employees including the petitioners were entitled to the payment of arrears also w.e.f. January 1, 1996 till March 31, 1999. It has been contended by Sh. Chatrath that the aforesaid restriction contained in Annexure P8 created an artificial classification and was discriminatory in nature. 13. On the other hand, Shri Girish Agnihotri and Sh. Narender Hooda, advocates have contended that as per Rule 11(2) of Haryana Municipal (Integration, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1982 it was the absolute discretion of the State Government to revise the scales of posts in a service, from time to time, as may be deemed proper. 13. On the other hand, Shri Girish Agnihotri and Sh. Narender Hooda, advocates have contended that as per Rule 11(2) of Haryana Municipal (Integration, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1982 it was the absolute discretion of the State Government to revise the scales of posts in a service, from time to time, as may be deemed proper. Relying upon the aforesaid provisions, it is argued by the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, that the petitioners could not be heard to make any grievance regarding the restriction on the payment of arrears contained in Annexure P8. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In our considered view, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 15. It is no doubt true that as per Rule 11(2) of the Rules (supra), it is the discretion of the State Government to provide for the scale of posts in a service as may be deemed proper from time to time but all the same one fact which cannot be lost sight is that right from the year 1969, the pay scales of the Municipal Committee employees were treated at par with the employees of the State Government. There was a conscious decision taken by the State Government at all times of the revision of pay scales of the State Government employees to accord the similar revision in favour of the Municipal employees as well. In fact, as and when, any such revision was not extended to the Municipal employees, there was a representation by the Municipal employees and on such representation, the parity was restored. In these circumstances, we fail to find any justification for denial of the same treatment to the Municipal employees while effecting the revision of pay scales of the State Government employees w.e.f. January 1, 1996. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid extension of the revision of pay scales has been accorded to the Municipal employees as well w.e.f. January 1, 1996. It is not understandable, as to how and why, the arrears of the aforesaid payment has been restricted only w.e.f. April 1, 1999. Neither the order Annexure P-8, nor the stand taken by the respondents in their written statements, justify any such restriction. 16. It is not understandable, as to how and why, the arrears of the aforesaid payment has been restricted only w.e.f. April 1, 1999. Neither the order Annexure P-8, nor the stand taken by the respondents in their written statements, justify any such restriction. 16. Once the claim of the Municipal employees to the revision of the pay scales at par with the State Government employees has been found to be justified and the basis of the aforesaid revision is the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission, then there is absolutely no justification to restrict the payment of arrears on the basis of the aforesaid revision. The petitioners have justifiably claimed the payment of arrears on the basis of the revision of pay scales w.e.f. January 1, 1996. If the stand of the respondents is accepted then it of course amounts to creation of artificial classification and arbitrary discrimination, which is neither rational, nor justified under the facts and circumstances of the case in any manner. 17. Accordingly, we allow the present writ petition and quash the stipulation contained in the communication dated January 7, 2000 (Annexure P8), whereby it has been provided that no arrears/benefit on account of notional fixation of pay in the revised scales/ACP scales w.e.f. January 1, 1996 to March 31, 1999 would be given to the employees. As a result of the aforesaid quashing of the aforesaid stipulation, it is made clear that the petitioners would be entitled to claim the arrears of the aforesaid revised pay scales w.e.f. January 1, 1996. The respondents are further directed to carry out the aforesaid directions and implement the judgment within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. There shall be no order as to costs.