Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1386 (HP)

Baldev Singh Chauhan v. State of HP

2011-03-17

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1.It is not necessary to give the facts of this petition in detail, since the facts in this petition are virtually identical to the facts of CWP(T) No. 2023 of 2008, titled as L.C. Bhardwaj and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 9th January, 2009 reported in Shimla Law Cases, 2009 (1) Shim. LC 278 wherein the same issue was involved and the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:- “It is evident from the bare reading of the order dated 30.12.2002 that Junior Engineers, who were appointed prior to 1.1.1996 were given parity in the matter of revision of pay scales with those Conservation Soil Officers, who were getting pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 at the time of entry into service, Rs. 3000-4500 after 8 years of service and Rs. 3700-5300 after 18 years of service as measure personal to them. The State of Punjab vide notification dated 7.7.2004 has changed the designation of the Sectional Officers to Soil Conservation Officers. Vide notification dated 5.2.2004 issued by the Government of Punjab, the posts of Agriculture Inspector/Soil Conservation Inspector/Research Assistant/Soil Survey Assistant Agriculture Inspector (Soil Survey Assistant Soil Conservation Officer/Divisional Soil Conservation Officer/Map Officer were merged as single cadre. Accordingly it is held that the petitioners who were working in the Soil Conservation Branch are entitled to get parity with Sectional Officers working in the State of Punjab now re-designated as Soil Conservation Officers. The stand of the respondent-State is that the petitioners are not discharging the same and similar duties which are being discharged by the Officers i.e. Sectional Officers now re-designated as Soil Conservation Officers in the State of Punjab. Its further stand is that the qualifications of the Junior Engineers prescribed in the State of Himachal Pradesh are different from the one provided in the State of Punjab in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Engineer. It has also been taken note of by the Court that the petitioners are also working in the soil conservation wing and are taking care of soil schemes/ works and extension activities with Block Development Officers. It has also been taken note of by the Court that the petitioners are also working in the soil conservation wing and are taking care of soil schemes/ works and extension activities with Block Development Officers. A similar plea was also raised before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby it was stated that the works of civil engineering nature are got executed through the Sectional Officers and the rest of the departmental works are got done through the Agricultural Inspectors etc. This plea was repelled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Consequently, it is held that the petitioners were discharging the same and similar duties which were being discharged by their counterparts in the Conservation Department of Punjab. The other plea raised by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General is that the petitioners have been granted the pay scales of the post of Junior Engineer which has been paid to all the Junior Engineers working in other departments on the basis of notification dated 19.5.1998. This similar plea was also raised before the Punjab and Haryana High Court but the same was also repelled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that in the State of Punjab after revising the pay scales of Sectional Officers, their qualifications were altered, however, the same were later on deleted and earlier qualifications were restored. The observation to this effect has also been made by respondent No.2 in one of the communications made by him to State on 17.3.1997. The matter is also required to be viewed from another angle. The petitioners had been granted the pay scales vide Annexures A-2 and A-4. The same have been withdrawn by respondent No.2 without issuing notices to them. It is settled law by now that any order which has civil consequences must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The orders Annexure A-1 is also liable to be struck down being violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly in view of the analysis and the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 10.6.2004 is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to pay scales which have been allowed to them vide Annexures A-2 and A-4, respectively. There will, however, be no order as to costs.” 2. Accordingly in view of the analysis and the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 10.6.2004 is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to pay scales which have been allowed to them vide Annexures A-2 and A-4, respectively. There will, however, be no order as to costs.” 2. In view of the fact that the relief claimed in this petition is identical, the same is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.