Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 96 (GAU)

Kemar Kamsi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2005-02-04

I.A.ANSARI

body2005
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The present one is an unpleasant case of glaring insensibility, irrationality and arbitrariness on the part of State Government, while dealing with its own employees. 2. The material facts and various stages, which have led to the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as follow : - The Petitioners, who are 96 in number, are Sub-Inspectors of Police in Arunachal Pradesh Police Force of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and they all fall under Group-B (non-Gazetted) officers as has been categorised by the State Government. Implementing the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission, the State Government made available to its Group-B (non-Gazetted) officers including the Sub-Inspectors of Police the scales of pay a of Rs. 1,640-2,900 p.m. with effect from 1.1.1986. Having, thereafter, accepted the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and chosen to follow the pay scales recommended by the said Commission, the State Government revised the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 p.m. to Rs. 5,500-9,000 p.m. for the Group-B (non-Gazetted) officers and made the said scale of pay available with effect from 1.1.1996. For reasons, which the State Government has not disclosed to this Court, the Government chose to grant to some of the classes of its officers, both Gazetted as well as non-Gazetted, working in various Departments, pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 2,000- 3,200 p.m. in place of Rs. 1,640-2,900 p.m. aforementioned The effect of introducing this pre-revised pay scale was that some of the officers, Gazetted as well as non-Gazetted, who fell in Group-B, started receiving the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 p.m. in place of Rs. 5,500-9,000 p.m., which they were receiving earlier. This Benefit of enhanced pre-revised pay scale was, in fact initially, made available to some Group B as well as Group A and Group C officers. Gradually, the benefit of the pre-revised enhanced pay scale was given to many other categories of officers, both Gazetted as well as non-Gazetted of the different Departments. 5,500-9,000 p.m., which they were receiving earlier. This Benefit of enhanced pre-revised pay scale was, in fact initially, made available to some Group B as well as Group A and Group C officers. Gradually, the benefit of the pre-revised enhanced pay scale was given to many other categories of officers, both Gazetted as well as non-Gazetted of the different Departments. Thus, the Directorate of Information and Public Relations and Printing started receiving this pay scale with effect from 18.1.1996, the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service Officers received this benefit with effect from 13.7.1997, the Directorate of Research received the benefit of this enhanced pre-revised pay scale with effect from 25.4.1997, the Deputy Superintendents of Police and Prosecuting Inspectors of Police began to receive this benefit with effect from 30.7.1997, the Office Superintendents of the Secretariat establishment in Ministerial Cadre, Teachers, Junior Engineers, started receiving this pre-revised scale with effect from 1.4.1998, the Finance and Accounts Department, Language Officer/Librarian/Assistant Research Officer/Assistant Curator/Technical Assistant/Archival Assistant were granted this benefit with effect from 1.1.2000 and the Extension Officers in Agriculture/Horticulture Departments came to receive this enhancement with effect from 1.5.2002. 3. When the State Government withdrew the benefit of pre-revised pay scales in respect of the Deputy Superintendents of Police, Prosecuting Inspectors of Police, Directorate of Information and Public Relations and Printing, Directorate of Research and Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service Officers, they approached this Court and by order, dated 19.11.2003, passed in WP(C) No. 362 (AP) 2001, WP(C) No. 380 (AP) 2001, WP(C) No. 164 (AP) 2000, WP(C) No. 168 (AP) 2000, WP(C) No. 167 (AP) 2000, this Court set aside the order, whereby the Government had withdrawn the benefits of the pre-revised pay scales in respect of the officers aforementioned, for, the Court concluded that having granted the benefit of pre-revised pay scales to the officers concerned, the benefit could not have been taken away without giving them any opportunity of showing cause or hearing. Though the State respondents were given, vide order, dated 19.11.2003, aforementioned, the liberty to consider and decide the question of reduction and re-fixation of the scales of pay of the said writ petitioners after giving them the opportunity of showing cause and hearing, no further action has, admittedly, been taken, in this regard, by the State Government and in consequence thereof, the officers aforementioned have continued to receive the benefits of the pre-revised enhanced pay scale. The order, dated 19.11.2003, of this Court, having not been challenged, has, thus, attained finality. 4. When the present writ petition came up for hearing on 18.6.2004, it was submitted, on behalf of the State respondents, during the course of hearing of this writ petition, that by order, dated 2.3.2004, a Committee had been constituted by the Government to examine various recommendations and representations in respect of the anomalies, which had occurred following enhancement in the pay scales of some classes of the Government employees, and the case of the writ petitioners could also be considered by the said Committee and that in this view of the matter, the present writ petition might be kept pending until the time a decision was taken by the Government on the basis of the recommendations of the said Committee, whereupon this Court directed as follows : "Considering he matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is directed to be listed after 3 months as part-heard and in the meanwhile, the respondents shall complete the exercise to be undertaken by them in pursuance of the order, dated 2.3.2004 aforementioned, if the exercise, so directed, remains inconclusive within the period of 3 months for justified reasons, this Court may consider giving further time to the respondents to complete the exercise of bringing parity in the pay scale of its employees including the petitioners. The petitioners shall, within a period of two weeks from today, make representation with regard to their grievances addressed to the Secretary, Finance, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and on receipt of the representation, as directed, the Secretary, Finance, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, shall do the needful in terms of the order, dated 2.3.2004, aforementioned and in accordance with the directions contained hereinabove." 5. Following the above directions given by this Court, the present petitioners made a representation addressed to the Secretary (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, who is respondent No. 3 herein, on 1.7.2004. 6. When the matter came up, again, for further hearing on 30.11.2004, it was submitted, on behalf of the respondents, that in terms of the directions issued in this case on 18.6.2004, the grievances of the petitioners were being actively considered by the Government, but as the grievances of the petitioners substantially related to finance, there was likely to be some delay in resolving the controversies. It was, therefore, prayed, on behalf of the respondents, that some more time be given to the State respondents to settle those grievances of the petitioners, which were sustainable in law. In view of the submissions so made and time sought for to settle the grievance of the petitioners, the State respondents were allowed two months' more time for doing the needful. 7. However, when the matter came up, once again, for hearing today, the learned senior Govt. advocate has produced before this Court a letter, dated 2.2.2005, issued from the Home Department addressed to the learned State Government Advocate indicating therein that the representation made by the present writ petitioners, on 1.7.2004, is still under examination of the Finance Department; but shockingly enough, the learned State Government advocate has also, at the same time, produced by a letter of the same date, i.e., 2.2.2005, issued by the Finance Department informing the learned senior Govt. advocate that the Committee, which was constituted as far back as on 2.3.2004, has not even started functioning as its terms of reference have not been approved by the Government and that in such a situation, the Finance Department is not in a position to examine the case of the petitioners for enhancement of their pay scale. It, thus, appears that the respondents have been playing hide and sick, for, when the Committee has not even started functioning till date, it was submitted before this Court, as far back as on 30.11.2004, that in terms of the directions given by this Court, on 18.6.2004, the grievances of the petitioners were under active consideration of the Government. 8. In the above backdrop and in the face of the complete failure, on the part of the State Government, to look into the grievances of the present petitioners, this Court has been left with no other option, but to take up the present writ petition for hearing on merit. 9. I have accordingly heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. B.L. Singh, learned senior Govt. advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 10. 9. I have accordingly heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. B.L. Singh, learned senior Govt. advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 10. Before proceeding any further, what needs to be carefully noted is that the material facts, which led to the filing of the present writ petition, are, not in dispute meaning thereby that there are, indeed, some officers of Group B, who have been given the benefit of the pre-revised enhanced pay scale of, Rs. 2,000-3,200 p.m., but this benefit has not been granted to the petitioners. It has been contended by the State respondents that the present writ petitioners are not similarly situated as the officers, who have been given the said benefit of pre-revised enhanced pay scale. No particulars have, however, been furnished by the State respondent to this Court to show as to how the respondents happen to distinguish and isolate the present writ petitioners from the purview of the said Benefit, which the Government has extended to the officers of the various Departments mentioned hereinbefore. If a person, whose nature of duty and responsibility, is less arduous than another, is given the benefit of an enhanced pay scale, the person, who does more arduous work, shall be, undoubtedly, given, at least, the benefit of that pay scale, which the person, who perform less arduous work, receives. 11. In the case at hand, the petitioners submit that their nature of work and duties is more arduous than those of other officers of Group B, for, the petitioners have to be on their toes for twenty-four hours a day in maintaining law and order, public order and also in investigating serious criminal offences at the risk of their life. The petitioners also submit that for receiving appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, one has to undergo strict physical and medical tests and after selection also, one year of regular physical training including training in arms in given to them. The petitioners have further submitted that they have been working for almost 20 years in the same capacity and they do not see avenues of promotion in the foreseeable future and that, generally, a Sub-Inspector of Police receives promotion, if at all, when he is on the verge of his retirement. These submissions of the present writ petitioners could not be refuted or dislodged by the State respondents. 12. These submissions of the present writ petitioners could not be refuted or dislodged by the State respondents. 12. In the face of what have been discussed and pointed out hereinabove, there can be no escape from the conclusion that when the Government has chosen to revise pay scale in the case of Group B officers and granted the benefit thereof to some of the persons as catalogued hereinabove, the nature of work, which the petitioners do, the duties, which they discharge, and the responsibilities, which they undertake and carry, warrant that similar financial benefits be extended by the State Government to the present petitioners, for, denial of the said financial benefits to the petitioners will be tantamount to putting a seal of approval on an arrangement that is arbitrary, discriminatory and irrational, which the State respondents have, for no justifiable reason, opted to adopt. 13. In the face of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reference made by Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners, to the case of Raj Bidichandani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1997) 11 SCC 601 , is not entirely misplaced inasmuch as in Raj Bidichandani (supra), which had slightly different facts, the Apex Court, while granting the reliefs, observed thus, "The only contention that has been raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals is that the Tribunal was in error in not extending the benefit of notional fixation in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,640-2,900 with effect from 1.1.1986. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the said contention must be accepted. The Tribunal has found that the Bilingual Stenographers have been paid the same emoluments which are being paid to the Stenographers Grade 'C' of the CSSS and that the respondents in withholding the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 from the appellants were acting arbitrarily. In the circumstances, the claim of the appellants for notional fixation in the scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 with effect from 1.1.1986 cannot be held to be unjustified especially when the benefit of the said scale had been extended to Stenographers Grade 'C' of the CSSS with effect from 1.1.1986 by order dated 31.7.1990. It is, therefore, directed that the appellants should notionally be placed in the scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 with effect from 1.1.1986 cannot be held to be unjustified especially when the benefit of the said scale had been extended to Stenographers Grade 'C' of the CSSS with effect from 1.1.1986 by order dated 31.7.1990. It is, therefore, directed that the appellants should notionally be placed in the scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 with effect from 1.1.1986 and, as a result of such placement, their pay as on 10.12.1993 should be revised on that basis and arrears found payable on the basis of such revision should be paid to them with in three months. The impugned orders of Tribunal are modified accordingly and the appeals are partly allowed to the extent. No order as to costs." 14. By making the present writ application, the petitioners have also sought for directions to the State respondents to prepare an Assured Career Progression Scheme to enable them to receive financial benefit for lack of promotional avenues as indicated hereinabove. This is an aspect of the matter, which, in the opinion of this Court, the State Government shall, first, look into and decide. 15. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is partly allowed. The State respondents are hereby directed to give notional benefit of pre-revised enhanced pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200 p.m. to the petitioners with effect from 30.7.1997, i.e., the date on which similar benefit was made available to the Prosecutor Inspectors of Police, who fall under Group B. The financial benefit of the pre-revised enhanced pay scale shall, as directed hereinbefore, be made available to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. The State respondents are also directed to examine the petitioners' prayer for evolving an Assured Career Progression Scheme and its findings shall be laid before this Court within a period of four months from today so as to enable this Court to pass such further order(s) as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. 16. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. 17. No costs.