Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1706 (PNJ)

J. P. Hooda v. State Of Haryana

2008-10-03

HEMANT GUPTA, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The appellants are the Accountants of the Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as HARCO Bank). The appellants claim that they enjoy equal status to the Accountants of Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited (for short "the HSLDB"). 2. As per the appellants, the Accountants in the HARCO Bank and the HSLDB were equated in salary for a long time as they were performing the similar duties in the fields or in the Head Office. Their salary from 1.4.1979 was common till 31.12.1985 i.e. Rs. 750-1250/-. But vide order dated 4.6.1986. the Accountants in the HSLDB were given revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1600/- and pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- with effect from 1.1.1986 by an order dated 13.1.1988. On the other hand, the pay scale of the appellants was revised to Rs, 1600-2660/-with effect from 1.1.1986, but subsequently revised to Rs. 2000-3200/-with effect from 5.5.1988 in the case of the Accountants working in the HARCO Bank and from 10.5.1988 in the case of the Accountants working in the Primary Cooperative Banks. It is, thus, the case of the appellants that they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986 as in the case of HSLDB and not from 5.5.1988/10.5.1988 in the case of the Accountants working in the HARCO Bank. The claim of the appellants for equal pay to that of Accountants working in another Cooperative Society was declined by the learned Single Judge vide order impugned in the present appeal on the ground that the pay of the appellants has been revised from 5,5.1988/10.5.1988. The revision in pay from such date is neither illegal nor arbitrary. The learned Single Judge found that the present one is a case of revision of pay and not a case of anomaly. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the Honble Supreme Court judgment reported as The Employees of Tannery vs. Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and another, 1991 (2) SLR 131 and State of Kerala vs. Renjith Kumar & others, JT 2008(8) SC 559, to contend that the parity in the pay scale of Accountants of HSLDB is required to be maintained even in respect of a date of grant of benefits in respect of the Accountants Working in HARCO Bank. 4. The appellants are the Accountants working in HARCO Bank. 4. The appellants are the Accountants working in HARCO Bank. The employer of the appellants is a separate juristic entity governed by its own Rules in respect of recruitment; promotion and discipline. On the other hand, HSLDB Bank is another Cooperative Society, though registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, but is having its own separate Constitution, Rules of Recruitment and Conditions of promotion etc. The pay fixed in one Society, cannot be made basis for grant of pay scale in another Cooperative Society. May be for the purpose of facility of due to practice, the pay scale of different posts may by at par in two entities but that does not lead to an inference that there was any parity in the nature of work or duties and responsibilities. Mere nomenclature of the post or the fact that at one point of time, the pay scale of the Accountants in HARCO Bank was identical with the pay scale of the Accountants of HSLDB, is not a ground to arrive at a conclusion that the duties and responsibilities of the Accountants working in two separate Cooperative Societies is also identical. The grant of revision of pay from a particular date depends upon numerous factors, including the financial condition of the organisations; the resources available; the liability to be incurred and the duties and responsibilities attached to posts in the organisations. Since the employer of the appellants has taken a conscious decision to give effect to the revision of pay scale from 5.5.1988 in respect of the employees working in the Head Office and from 10.5.1988 for the Accountants working in the Primary Cooperative Societies, such decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or that the appellants would be entitiled to revision in pay scale from 1.1.1986 on the strength of the revision of the pay scale of the Accountants in HSLDB. 5. That judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd.s case (supra), deals with a situation, where a direction was issue to reconsider the revision of pay scales by a High Powered Committee chaired by Shri Justice R.B. Misra. Such Committee recommended pay scales to various public sector undertakings of Government of India, having the Central Government pattern of DA. Such Committee recommended pay scales to various public sector undertakings of Government of India, having the Central Government pattern of DA. The direction of revision of pay scale was issued keeping in view the report of the Committee and the earlier directions of the Court. However, in the present case, there is no decision or report to provide identical pay scale to the employees of HARCO with that of HSLDB nor there is any report or finding that the Accountants of HARCO Bank and that of HSLDB, discharge the similar kinds of duties and responsibilities. On the basis of the parity in the nomenclature of the posts, the appellants cannot be given benefit of revised pay scale from 1.1.1986. 6. In Renjith Kumars case (supra), the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal, were granted the same pay scale as that of the District Judges in the State. Such parity in the pay scale was granted after returning a finding that the Presiding Officers working for more than three decades, are discharging the same functions and duties. Therefore, the same benefits should be given to the respondents. However, in respect of the Accountants working in two different organisations, there cannot be any similarity in nature of duties and functions. The working of each organisation is distinct and separate and it has its own level of duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the pay scale given to the Accountants of one organisation from a particular date cannot form basis to grant benefits to the Accountants of another organisation from the same date. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed