Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 380 (BOM)

Anthony X. Naronha v. State of Goa

2008-03-11

N.A.BRITTO, R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR

body2008
JUDGMENT R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. Heard. The point sought to be raised for consideration is whether the respondents could have revised the pay scale for the post of Workshop Instructor which was feeder post for Technical Assistant without revising the pay scale for the post of Technical Assistant. 2. Undisputedly, the rules in force at the relevant time provided that, the Workshop Instructor's post was a feeder post to the post of Technical Assistant. The pay scale of the Technical Assistant was in the scale of Rs. 425-700 whereas to that of Workshop Instructor's was Rs. 380-560. By an order dated 28.11.1991, the Government conveyed its sanction for the revision of pay scale of the Workshop Instructor from Rs. 380-560 to 440-750, notionally with effect from 1.1.1973. However, there was no revision of pay scales as far as Technical Assistants were concerned. 3. The petitioners have filed present petition seeking directions for revision of the pay scale of the Technical Assistant in a scale higher than that of the Workshop Instructors as was ordered under order dated 28.11.1991 and further to extend those benefits to the petitioners. 4. Placing reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Chief Administrator-cum-Jt. Secretary to the Govt. of India and another v. Dipak Chandra Das, reported in 1998 (II) CLR 874 and the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of T.R.L. Narayanan and others v. Union of India and others, reported in 1986 Lab IC 1671, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the respondents have nowhere disputed the fact that the Workshop Instructor's post was the feeder post for the Technical Assistant's post and while revising the pay scale of the Workshop Instructor's post, no such revision was made in relation to the pay scale pertaining to the Technical Assistant's post which has resulted in anomalous situation inasmuch as that the pay scale of feeder post has been higher than that of the promotional post. 5. 5. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand drawing our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Hiranmoy Sen and others, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 630 submitted that the matter was placed before the Ombudsman and in his report the grievance of the petitioners was considered and found to be without any substance. Considering the nature of the duties performed by the Workshop Instructors and bearing in mind the performance of the Technical Assistant, according to the learned Advocate for the respondents, no fault can be found in the order revising the pay scale of the Workshop Instructors. 6. The fact that at the relevant time, the Workshop Instructor's post was feeder post to that of Technical Assistant's post and the pay scale of the feeder post also was revised under order dated 28.11.1991, are not in dispute. The specific averment in that regard in the petition has neither been challenged nor disputed by the respondents though the respondents have filed detail affidavit in the matter. It is also not in dispute that, the pay scale for the post of Workshop Instructor was revised under order 28.11.1991 and as a result, the pay scale of the Workshop Instructor was placed in the higher scale than to that of the Technical Assistant. It is also not in dispute that the recruitment rules for the promotion provided that the Workshop Instructor's post was feeder post to that of the Technical Assistant's post. The same remained to be promotional post even after order dated 28.11.1991. In those circumstances, the petitioners are justified in contending that the pay scale of the feeder post cannot be higher than that of the promotional post. Indeed, this aspect was considered in detail by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in T.L.R. Narayanan's case and it was clearly held that "When the pay scales applicable to the lower or feeder Govt. posts for promotion to the next higher post are revised and increased, the pay scale in respect of the higher promotion post should also be appropriately revised and increased to avoid the anomalous result of equal or equivalent scales of pay in unequal posts. posts for promotion to the next higher post are revised and increased, the pay scale in respect of the higher promotion post should also be appropriately revised and increased to avoid the anomalous result of equal or equivalent scales of pay in unequal posts. Otherwise the revision of the pay scales of the feeder posts would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and would be liable to be struck down as being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. The decision of the Apex Court in Chief Administrator-cum-Jt. Secretary to the Govt. of India v. Dipak Chandra Das's case is also of great help to find out the answer to the point in issue. The view taken by the Apex Court in the said decision clearly fortifies the view which we are taking in the matter in hand. In the said case before the Apex Court, the Tribunal had fixed the higher pay scale for the promotional post on account of failure on the part of the Government to revise the pay scale of the promotional post while revising the pay scale of the feeder post. In that respect, the Apex Court had held that the finding of the Tribunal that the post of Divisional Accountant was higher in status than that of the Senior Accountant could not have found fault with. However, the Tribunal itself could not have fixed the pay scale but it was more appropriate for the Tribunal to issue direction to revise the pay scale accordingly for the post of Divisional Accountant. Thereby the Apex Court clearly ruled that once the pay scale of the feeder post is revised and increased on higher scale, certainly, there has to be corresponding increase and revision for the pay scale of the promotional post. 8. The decision of the Apex Court in Hiranmoy Sen's case has no application to the case in hand. That is on the point of applicability of principle of equal pay for equal work and not relating to the issue which is under consideration. 9. 8. The decision of the Apex Court in Hiranmoy Sen's case has no application to the case in hand. That is on the point of applicability of principle of equal pay for equal work and not relating to the issue which is under consideration. 9. The perusal of the report of the Ombudsman nowhere discloses that the grievance of the petitioners, relating to the anomalous situation which has been resulted on account of the revision of the pay scale of the feeder post while no such revision was made in relation to the pay scale of the promotion post, was ever considered. 10. For the reasons stated above, therefore, the petitioners are justified in contending that the respondents may be directed to revise the pay scale in relation to the posts of Technical Assistant and to fix the same in next appropriate higher pay scale bearing in mind the order dated 28.11.1991 which related to the revision of the pay scale of the Workshop Instructors and to grant such other benefits arising there from to the petitioners. 11. Hence, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause para. 21. Petition allowed.