Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 178 (HP)

R. C. SHARMA v. H. P. HOUSING BOARD

2009-03-19

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge.:-In sequel to advertisement dated 20.7.1975, the petitioner was appointed Maintenance Mechanic in the pay scale of Rs. 200-450. The Junior Engineers and Head Draftsmen (Division) were also in the pay scale of Rs. 200-450. The pay scale of Assistant Draftsmen/ Upper Divisional Clerks/Assistants and Stenographers was Rs. 170-300, Rs. 160-400 and Rs. 160-400 respectively. However, the anomaly had arisen after the recommendations made by the 2nd Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1978 whereby the Junior Engineers and Head Draftsmen were granted the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200. The pay scale of Maintenance Mechanic/Assistant Draftsmen/ Upper Division Clerks/ Assistants/ Stenographers was revised to Rs. 570-1080. The petitioner made representation seeking the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200 at par with Junior Engineers and Head Draftsmen on 7.10.1982. The same was rejected by the competent authority on 13.11.1986 on the ground that the qualification for the post of Maintenance Mechanic was different from the post of Junior Engineer. 2. Vide Annexure A-23 dated 10.11.1989, the petitioner’s pay scale was revised from Rs. 5701080 to Rs. 1500-2640 with effect from 1.1.1986. The pay scale of Head Draftsmen was revised to Rs. 1640-2925. The pay scale of Assistant Draftsmen was revised to Rs. 1500-2640 at par with the petitioner. The Board had decided to grant the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 from Rs. 570-1080 to Assistants, Senior Assistants and Stenographers with effect from 1.1.1986 vide Annexure A 24. The petitioner made representation vide Annexure A-25. The same was rejected by the competent authority vide Annexure A-26. Vide Annexure A-27, the pay scale of Head Draftsmen was revised to 2000-3500 and of the Assistant Draftsmen to Rs. 1800-3200. The petitioner made representation. His case was also recommended by the Executive Engineer. The same stood rejected by the competent authority vide Annexure A 30. 3. Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that initially the pay scale of Maintenance Mechanic/Junior Engineer/Head Draftsman was Rs. 200-450 and the same was revised with effect from 1.1.1978 to Rs. 570-1080 as far as the petitioner is concerned. However, the pay scale of Junior Engineers and Head Draftsmen was revised to Rs. 700-1200. The pay scale of the persons holding the post of Assistant Draftsmen/Draftsmen though in lower pay scale was revised to Rs. 570-1080. 200-450 and the same was revised with effect from 1.1.1978 to Rs. 570-1080 as far as the petitioner is concerned. However, the pay scale of Junior Engineers and Head Draftsmen was revised to Rs. 700-1200. The pay scale of the persons holding the post of Assistant Draftsmen/Draftsmen though in lower pay scale was revised to Rs. 570-1080. He then contended that the petitioner’s parity was required to be maintained with Junior Engineers/Head Draftsmen and at least with Assistant Draftsmen/Draftsmen, Upper Division Clerks/Assistants and Stenographers, he has termed the decision of the respondent-Board to deprive the petitioner higher pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986 at par with Assistant Draftsmen/ Draftsmen/ Upper Division Clerks/Assistants/Stenographers, who were at one time in the lower pay scale of Rs. 170-300 and Rs. 160-400 with effect from 1.1.1978 and were granted the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 as arbitrary. He lastly contended that the qualification for filling up the post of Maintenance Mechanic/Head Draftsman/Assistant Draftsman is Matriculation with I.T.I. qualification and the qualification for filling up the post of Upper Division Clerk/Stenographer is Matriculation with knowledge of Stenography. 4. Mr. J.R. Thakur has supported the decision of the Board whereby the petitioner has been granted the pay scale of Rs. 15002640 instead of Rs. 1800-3200. 5. I have heard the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. The petitioner has been appointed after adjudging his suitability to the post of Maintenance Mechanic. He is Matriculate with I.T.I. qualification. It is not in dispute that at one given time before 1.1.1978, the pay scale of Maintenance Mechanic, Junior Engineer, Head Draftsman was the same i.e. Rs. 200-450. It is also not disputed that the pay scale of Head Draftsmen/Draftsmen/ Upper Division Clerks/Assistants and Stenographers were Rs. 170-300 and Rs. 160-400. The anomaly had arisen only with effect from 1.1.1978 whereby the persons who were getting the pay scale of Rs. 200-450 i.e. Junior Engineers and Head Draftsmen were granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 700-1200 and the petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080. The persons who were in the lower pay scale of Rs. 170-300 and Rs. 160-400 were brought at par with Maintenance Mechanic in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080. 200-450 i.e. Junior Engineers and Head Draftsmen were granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 700-1200 and the petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080. The persons who were in the lower pay scale of Rs. 170-300 and Rs. 160-400 were brought at par with Maintenance Mechanic in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080. The respondents instead of removing the anomaly on the basis of existing parity of pay scales granted higher pay scale even to the Assistant Draftsmen/ Draftsmen/ Upper Division Clerks/ Assistants and Stenographers i.e. Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs. 15002640. The pay scale of Head Draftsmen (Division) was revised to Rs. 2000-3500. The representation has been rejected arbitrarily vide Annexure A-26 by comparing his qualification with the qualification of the post of Junior Engineer. 7. The petitioner had been granted the pay scale of Rs. 200-450 on his appointment. The pay scale of the post of Junior Engineer and Head Draftsmen was also the same i.e. 200-450. They were granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 700-1200 with effect from 1.1.1978. The pay scale of Junior Engineers was revised from Rs. 700-1200 to Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986. The pay scale of Head Draftsmen was revised from Rs. 700-1200 to Rs. 2000-3500 with effect from 1.1.1986. The persons like, Assistant Draftsmen/ Draftsmen/ Upper Division Clerks/ Assistants/ Stenographers, who were at one given time in the lower pay scale of Rs. 170-300 and Rs. 160400 and were subsequently brought to Rs. 570-1080, their pay scales have been further revised to Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986. The petitioner has been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 with effect from 1.1.1986. The parity which was maintained by the respondent-Board while releasing the pay scales earlier had been disturbed arbitrarily by the Board by revising the petitioner’s pay scale from Rs. 570-1080 to Rs. 1500-2640 instead of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986. The qualification for filling up the post, as noticed above, of Assistant Draftsman including Head Draftsman is Matriculation with I.T.I. certificate. The qualification for filling up the post of Upper Division Clerk/Assistant is Matriculation and of the Stenographer is Matriculation with knowledge of Stenography. There are no convincing or cogent reasons assigned by the Board why the petitioner has been discriminated against. The equals cannot be treated as unequal. The qualification for filling up the post of Upper Division Clerk/Assistant is Matriculation and of the Stenographer is Matriculation with knowledge of Stenography. There are no convincing or cogent reasons assigned by the Board why the petitioner has been discriminated against. The equals cannot be treated as unequal. The plea of Mr. J.R. Thakur that the post of the petitioner is isolated and he could not be granted the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986 merits rejection. The State is not bound to follow the Punjab pattern blindly. It has to be followed rationally. While adopting the pay scales on Punjab pattern, the respondent cannot over look Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In case, the post is not available in the State of Punjab corresponding to the post existing in the State of Himachal Pradesh, rational decision is required to be taken. The arbitrariness should not be permitted to persist. The Board has not decided the representations made by the petitioner in a reasonable manner. The Board could not remain oblivious to the fact that the persons, who were getting lower pay scale than the petitioner before 1.1.1978 and who were brought at par with the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1978 have been granted higher pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the petitioner has been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa and others versus State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406 have held that the Courts may interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. Their Lordships have held as under: “He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.” 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The decision of the respondents of not granting the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986 at par with Assistant Draftsmen/Upper Divisional Clerks/Assistants/Stenographers etc. is declared Arbitrary. Annexures A-20, A-26 and A-30 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum within eight weeks from today. No costs.