Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1382 (HP)

Uma Sharma v. H. P. Child Welfare Council

2011-03-17

SANJAY KAROL

body2011
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. According to Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by this Court in Anil Sharma & Os. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP(T) No. 7148 of 2008 and Inder Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP(T) No. 11331 of 2008 , copies of which are taken on record. 2. In Inder Kumar (supra), controversy in issue was same and the Court observed as under:- “2. The main question involved in these cases is with regard to the release of revised scales as per the 5th Pay Commission report in the year 1996. The stand of respondent No.3-Board is that it has no funds of its own and it only can give the salary which is approved by the State Government. The State Government in its reply has stated that it has nothing to do in the matter and it is only a distributing agency for the purpose of releasing the Grant-in-aid to the said institution. However, from the reply of the Board it is apparent that the State has also taken a decision that the Board could not revise the salary of the employees. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the stand of the State. On the one hand it states that it has no concern with the matter and on the other it has taken a decision not to approve the decision of respondent No.3-Board to grant revised pay scales to its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 3. It is important to note that thereafter even the 6th Pay Commission has given its report and the pay scales of Govt. employees have further been enhanced w.e.f. 1.1.2006. It cannot be expected that the employees of Boards/Corporations should work on the same salaries which were being paid in the year 1986. There has to be increase in the salary commensurate to increase in other wings of the Government. Merely because these employees are not employees of the Government, they cannot be denied an increase in pay commensurate with the increase that has been given to employees of the State Government. There has to be increase in the salary commensurate to increase in other wings of the Government. Merely because these employees are not employees of the Government, they cannot be denied an increase in pay commensurate with the increase that has been given to employees of the State Government. This Court itself cannot increase the pay of the Government employees and the State keeping in view its resources has to formulate a separate policy for such employees or accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission, but the Government just cannot remain a silent spectator and expect these employees to work on a salary which was fixed more than 20 years back. 4. The Government is supposed to be a model employer and it is expected that the Government should be alive to the difficulties being faced by the employees of the Social Welfare Advisory Board and other such institutions under the Social Justice department. In this day and age a large number of functions/sovereign duties of the Government are being performed by such Boards and agencies. These persons who perform their duties cannot be paid a mere pittance. There has to be some nexus between the remuneration paid to them by taking into consideration the work being done by these employees and keeping in view the high rate of inflation and increase in salaries in other wings of the Government. The State cannot make an excuse that it is only an agency to distribute funds to the Boards. Once the powers that be, take political and other advantages of announcing various schemes meant for the welfare of the public they cannot now say that they cannot pay adequate salaries and allowances to the men and women who man these highly publicized schemes. These employees cannot be paid a salary which was fixed more than 2 decades ago. 5. This court is not oblivious to the fact that it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to decide what remuneration has to be paid to an employee. For this purpose some expert committee has to be set up. Since the State has failed to discharge its function, in this behalf I am compelled to constitute a committee consisting of the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Principal Secretary, (Social Justice and Empowerment) to the Govt. For this purpose some expert committee has to be set up. Since the State has failed to discharge its function, in this behalf I am compelled to constitute a committee consisting of the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Principal Secretary, (Social Justice and Empowerment) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh who shall after taking into consideration the various aspects relating to fixation of pay fix the pay of the employees of the Social Welfare Advisory Board and other Boards falling within the purview of the Social Justice Department on or before 30th April, 2011. The committee shall while making this recommendation take into consideration the reports of the 5th Pay Commission and 6th Pay Commission also. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.” 3. In Anil Sharma (supra), this Court has also taken the following view::- “8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners and other similarly situate employees of the HP Council for Child Welfare for Grant of revised pay scales applicable from 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006 within six months from today. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, shall ensue the Govt. decision in the light of this judgment.” 4. In the instant case, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- i) That the respondents may be directed to release the pay scale of Rs.825-1580 to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and thereafter the revised pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and further revision effected w.e.f. 1.1.1996. ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant the arrears of revised pay scales to the applicant along with interest @18% per annum.” 5. Having perused the records, first part of the petitioner’s relief clause cannot be accepted. There is no basis on which the higher payscale w.e.f. 1.1.1978, as revised from 1.1.1986, can be released to the petitioner for the reason that prior to 1.1.1996 the Government itself had revised the pay-scales and there is nothing on record to show parity in any respect between the petitioner and the other employees in various departments of the Government. 6. However, with regard to the second part of the prayer, undisputedly there has been no revision after 1.1.1996. 6. However, with regard to the second part of the prayer, undisputedly there has been no revision after 1.1.1996. Consequently, directions issued by this Court in Inder Kumar and Anil Sharma (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case also. In view of the same, respondents are directed to take appropriate action within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.