Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 253 (RAJ)

Tara Chand Garg v. State of Rajasthan

2011-02-03

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 04.11.1997, Annex.-18 passed by the Registrar, Jain Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and order dated 10.06.1993, Annex.-13 passed by Officer on Special Duty, Government of Rajasthan, Education (Group IV) Department and orders dated 03.12.1993 and 01.08.1994, Annex.-19 and 20 respectively, passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Government of Rajasthan, Education (Group IV) Department, whereby, the petitioner was denied the pay-scale in the grade of Rs.3000-4500. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Press Manager by the then Jodhpur University in pursuance of advertisement No.63/1981 dated 18.11.1981 and advertisement No.84/1982 dated 27.12.1982. At the time of issuing the advertisements, it was specifically mentioned that the pay-scale of the post of Press Manager is Rs.650-1270 (Scale No.18 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1976) and it was further observed that the pay-scale is likely to be amended to Rs.1150-1650 in Pay Scale No.22 of the 1976 Revised Pay Scales Rules. 3. A claim was made by the petitioner by way of filing a representation on 13.02.1984 for granting the pay-scale of Rs.1150-1650 as per Rules of 1976 which was further revised with effect from 1981. Representation of the petitioner dated 08.07.1991 was considered by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 22.01.1992 and the Syndicate of the University approved the grant of higher pay-scale to the petitioner corresponding to pay-scale of Rs.1150-1650 (Scale No.22) as revised and prevailing in 1992 i.e., pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 with effect from 22.01.1992. While approving the said claim of the petitioner, the Syndicate, however, put rider that in the event of the Government not finally agreeing for grant of the same, the amount drawn by the petitioner will be refunded. 4. In pursuance of the resolution of the Syndicate dated 22.01.1992, the petitioner was allowed the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 with effect from 22.01.1992 upon the aforesaid rider that if the Government would not finally approve the pay-scale, then, the petitioner will refund the amount. After granting the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 to the petitioner, the matter was referred to the State Government for approval by the University. In turn, vide communication dated 27.02.1993 the State Government directed the University to send factual and clarifications on certain points. After granting the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 to the petitioner, the matter was referred to the State Government for approval by the University. In turn, vide communication dated 27.02.1993 the State Government directed the University to send factual and clarifications on certain points. The respondent University accordingly sent justification for the claim of the petitioner and made clarifications on the queries made by the State Government. 5. It is very strange that State Government informed the University that it is not possible to accept the proposal at present due to work-load requirement and financial condition of the University press. When the petitioner came to know about the said order, he submitted an appeal to the Vice Chancellor of the University but the Registrar of the University issued an order on 12.02.1994 directing recovery of the amount drawn by the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500. However, the said order was kept in abeyance until decision is taken by the Syndicate. 6. The Syndicate of the respondent University, in its meeting held on 17.05.1994, resolved that the pay-scale granted to the petitioner may be continued and matter may again be sent to the State Government. The State Government again refused to grant approval vide communication dated 01.08.1994. Therefore, the Registrar of the University passed order on 04.11.1997, whereby, the respondent University reduced the pay-scale of the petitioner from Rs.3000-4500 to Rs.2200-4000 with effect from 22.01.1992. It was further directed to effect the recovery from the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity of the above order submits that the State Govt. vide notification dated 2.3.1991 constituted a committee known as co-ordinate committee of the Universities of Rajasthan. Said committee was entrusted the task to examine the terms and conditions of service of various categories of the employees of the three Universities of the State and make recommendations to bring about uniformity in the pay-scale of the employees. vide notification dated 2.3.1991 constituted a committee known as co-ordinate committee of the Universities of Rajasthan. Said committee was entrusted the task to examine the terms and conditions of service of various categories of the employees of the three Universities of the State and make recommendations to bring about uniformity in the pay-scale of the employees. The question of fixation of pay-scale of the Press Manager was considered by the co-ordinate committee and it is found that suitable persons for the post of Press Manager were not available on account of lower pay-scale which was at the relevant time Rs.650-1270 under the Revision of Pay Scales Rules, 1976, therefore, the co-ordinate committee in its meeting dated 26.5.1981 held under the Chairmanship of Education Secretary recommended that pay-scale of the post of Press Manager be revised to Rs.1150-1650 to bring it at par with the existing pay scale of the University of Rajasthan; meaning thereby, a conscious decision was taken by the co-ordinate committee constituted by the Government but, on illegal grounds, the State Government refused to approve the recommendation made by the Syndicate in favour of the petitioner for grant of pay-scale of Rs.1150-1650 and corresponding pay scale of Rs.3000-4500. 8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.S. Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the selection and appointment for the post of Press Manager in the University of Rajasthan are governed by the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974. Under Section 9 of the Act of 1974, an officer working in one University is liable to be transferred in another University by the Chancellor. The post of Press Manager also exists in the University of Rajas-than and it carries same duties and qualification and same work-load which the petitioner is also having and getting the pay-scale of Rs.1150-1650; and, after revision of the pay-scale, he is getting salary in the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989, therefore, if the Press Manager in the University of Rajasthan is getting pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500, then, such benefit cannot be denied by the State Government to the petitioner. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon perusal of order of denial it will go to show that it is not under any rule but on the basis of whimsical attitude of the authorities of the State Government which is apparent from the fact that in the order of denial dated 10.06.1993 the reason for denial to the Syndicate's resolution is that it is not possible to accept the proposal at present due to work-load requirement and financial condition of the University press. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such type of attitude of the State Government is totally unwarranted and unnecessarily disturbing the functioning and autonomy of the University, therefore, the action of the State Government is totally illegal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that once the Syndicate has considered the case of the petitioner for grant of pay-scale of Rs.1150-1650 with effect from 22.01.1992 on the basis of entitlement of the petitioner, then, State Government was to take proper decision and while taking the decision for grant of said pay-scale in the case of the petitioner it was duty of the authorities of the State Government to consider the fact that similarly situated person working on the post of Press Manager is getting the pay-scale which the Syndicate took decision in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 2009 AIR SCW 629, Union of India & Others vs. Satya Brata Chowdhary & Others and AIR 1991 SC 1367 , Employees of Tannery & Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. & Another vs. Union of India & Others. 11. While inviting attention towards above judgments of the apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards para 17 of the judgment in the case of Satya Brata Chowdhary & Others (supra) and para 14 and 15 of the judgment in the case of Employees of Tannery & Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and submits that Hon'ble apex Court has held that no discrimination can be made while granting pay-scale to similarly situated employees. Therefore, it is submitted that prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition for grant of pay-scale of Rs.1150-1650 with effect from 22.01.1992, the date on which the resolution was passed by the Syndicate and corresponding pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 is required to be given to the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that action of the respondent State is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, so also, it is violative of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition may be allowed and State Government may be directed to grant approval to the decision taken by the Syndicate for granting pay-scale to the petitioner of Rs.3000-4500 in its meeting dated 22.01.1992. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of University submits that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Syndicate and he was found entitled and, after taking into consideration entire facts, resolution was passed by the Syndicate for granting pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500, therefore, as per the rider imposed while granting the said benefit to the petitioner the Registrar of the University has rightly issued order of re-fixation and for recovery of the amount from the salary of the petitioner. 14. Learned Government Counsel submits that the jurisdiction for prescribing any pay-scale is the domain of the State Government, so also, the authority of the State Government cannot be questioned if decision is taken by the authorities of the State Government after due application of mind. For the decision taken in this case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that due to less work-load in the University the proposal given by the Syndicate was not accepted, therefore, the so called decision which is communicated by the State Government vide Annex.-13, Annex.-19 and Annex.-20 is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the State Government. It is argued that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right any particular pay-scale, the State Government has every right to deny the benefit allowed by the Syndicate which is not in consonance with the principles of law. 15. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by both the parties. 16. In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Press Manager after due selection. 15. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by both the parties. 16. In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Press Manager after due selection. It is also not in dispute that at the time of issuing the advertisement, although it was published that the post carries the pay-scale of Rs.650-1270, but, it is further specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the said pay-scale is likely to be revised to the pay-scale of Rs.1150-1650; meaning thereby, as per the advertisement itself as and when the pay-scale was to be revised, it was to be given to the petitioner; but, admittedly even though specifically mentioned in the advertisement that pay-scale is going to be revised, in the event of revision of pay-scale, however, the said benefit was not extended to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner repeatedly made requests to the University for granting the revised pay10 scale while fixing his pay in the pay-scale of Rs.1150-1650. 17. The prayer of the petitioner was accepted by his employer which is respondent University and, for that, a consious decision was taken in the meeting of the Syndicate on 22.01.1992 and it is resolved that the petitioner is entitled for the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 with effect from 22.01.1992. After taking the said decision, the matter was referred to the State Government for approval. It is very strange that vide Annex.-13, following reasons were given for denial of approval to the resolution of the Syndicate : “With reference to your above letter, I am directed to inform you that it is not possible to accept your proposal at present due to work load requirement and financial conditions of the university press.” 18. In the first instance, the said communication is totally baseless order because in the event of taking decision by the Syndicate which is statutory body under the Act. It is the duty of the authorities of the State Government to consider the reason for which the decision has been taken by the Syndicate. Here, in this case, when the employer of the employee after having considered the matter in its entirety took decision for grant of certain pay-scale and sent the proposal to the State Government for approval, then, it is the duty of the State Government not to act in discriminatory manner. Here, in this case, when the employer of the employee after having considered the matter in its entirety took decision for grant of certain pay-scale and sent the proposal to the State Government for approval, then, it is the duty of the State Government not to act in discriminatory manner. The fact of the present case is that similarly situated person working on the post of Press Manager in the Rajasthan University is getting the same pay-scale as granted to the petitioner by the Syndicate. If it is so, then, how it can be presumed that there is no work-load in the respondent University press on the basis of which the decision of the Syndicate can be denied by the State Government. The decision of the State Government is not based upon cogent reasons and is violative of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The State Government cannot be permitted to act in discriminatory manner. 19. If two identical posts are in existence in two Universities in the State, then, it is obvious that at the time of granting benefit of pay scale at par with the other University by the Syndicate is based upon Article 14 of the Constitution of India, such decision is required to be honoured by the State Government for the reason that the decision is as per law. The State authorities cannot be permitted to disrespect the decision taken by the Syndicate for the purpose of granting certain pay-scale to its employee, that too, on the ground that in the other University incumbent on the identical post is getting the pay-scale for which the decision has been taken by the Syndicate. In my opinion, the order of denial of approval suffers from illegality. 20. In the judgment of the apex Court in AIR 1991 SC 1367 (supra), following adjudication has been made by the Supreme Court in para 14 and 15: “14. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that respondent-corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India are distinct legal entites carrying on different trading activities and the petitioners cannot claim parity in pay-scales with the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India and that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked. It is no doubt true that the respondent-corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, are distinct legal entities. It is no doubt true that the respondent-corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, are distinct legal entities. But at the same time it cannot be ignored that both are instrumentalities of the Government of India who is bound by the directives contained in Part IV of the Constitution. 15. In this context it may be pointed out that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in its order dated March 14, 1986 in Writ Petition No.12655 of 1986 and connected matter, the Government of India had appointed a High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Justice R.B. Misra, to go into the various aspects relating to pay scales and other incidental matters such as additional D.A., interim relief and other allowances to the employees working in the Public Sector government by the Central Government pay-scales and D.A. The said Committee after considering the pay-scales in the various Public Enterprises having Central Government pattern of D.A. Has recommended uniform pay-scales for the employees including subordinate staff falling in the categories of (i) Attendant, Messenger, Peon, Watchman, Safaiwala, Mali, etc.; (ii) Daftry, Jamadar, Head Watchman etc.; (iii) Record Keeper, Record Sorter, Junior Clerks etc.; and (iv) U.D.C., Assistants etc. The Committee was of the view that rationalisation of the present heterogeneous structure of pay scales was required in the interests of uniform remuneration for similar work in the different enterprises. In Jute Corporation of India Officers' Assocation vs. Jute Corporation of India Limited, (1990) 2 JT SC 255, this Court has given directions for applying the revised pay-scales recommended by the said Committee to the various Public Sector Undertakings of the Government of India having the Central Government pattern of D.A. This shows that there would be parity in pay-scales of the employees falling in the four categories, with which we are concerned, in the various enterprises of the Government of India which are following the Central Government D.A. Pattern. There appears to be no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar parity in the matter of pay-scales with the staff falling in the aforesaid four categories employed with the Cotton Corporation of India especially when such employees were having the same pay-scales in 1970. There appears to be no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar parity in the matter of pay-scales with the staff falling in the aforesaid four categories employed with the Cotton Corporation of India especially when such employees were having the same pay-scales in 1970. We are, therefore, of the view that the pay-scales of the employees in the unionised cadre falling in the four categories referred to above in the respondent-corporation should be revised in a way that the same are at par with the pay-scales of such employees employed with the Cotton Corporation of India.” 21. Similarly, in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2009 AIR SCW 629 (supra) following adjudication has been made in para 17 for maintaining party in granting the benefits to the employees : “17. We may, at the outset, notice that the only contention raised by the appellant before the Tribunal, as also before the High Court, was that the recruitment Procedure in the Eastern Railway Administration was different for the Time-keepers. It has been held not to be so. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.7.1991 in TA No.1585 of 1986 has been noticed by us. Therein, the Tribunal directed the workmen of the workshops at Liluah and elsewhere to be treated at par with their counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and Chittarnjan locomotive workshops. It was, therefore, impermissible for the appellant to treat the workers similarly situated, differently. They were to be treated as workers under the Factories Act. Only because some overtime allowance became payable to them or a separate seniority list was maintained or a cadre for the said workers on workshop basis was constituted, the same by itself, in our opinion did not authorize the Eastern Railway Administration to discriminate the workers working in one workshop with the workers working in the other.” 22. I have considered the facts and grounds taken by learned counsel for the petitioner in this case in the light of the afore-quoted judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In my opinion, order Annex.-13 dated 10.06.1993, Annex.-19 dated 03.12.1993 and Annex.-20 dated 01.08.1994, whereby, the State Government refused to give approval to the decision of the Syndicate for grant of pay-scale to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 with effect from 22.01.1992 is totally erroneous and based upon discrimination. In my opinion, order Annex.-13 dated 10.06.1993, Annex.-19 dated 03.12.1993 and Annex.-20 dated 01.08.1994, whereby, the State Government refused to give approval to the decision of the Syndicate for grant of pay-scale to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 with effect from 22.01.1992 is totally erroneous and based upon discrimination. Further, the reason which is given for not approving the decision taken by the Syndicate is totally untenable and contrary to basic principles of law. 23. In the result, therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Orders/ communications Annex.-13 dated 10.06.1993, Annex.-19 dated 03.12.1993 and Annex.-20 dated 01.08.1994 communicated to the respondent University by the Officer on Special Duty, Government of Rajasthan are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent State is directed to grant approval to the proposal made by the Syndicate of the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur in its meeting dated 22.01.1992 and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner. Respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits within three months from the date of filing certified copy of this order.