Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1744 (PNJ)

Satish Kumar Sangwan v. State of Haryana

2012-12-04

MAHESH GROVER

body2012
Mahesh Grover, J.— The petitioners pray that they be given the pay scale of Rs. 2000-4000 with time scale of Rs. 3000-4500 after five years of service and selection grade of Rs. 4100-5300 after 12 years of service like medical officer Class II/SDEs/Dental Surgeons/DSPs etc. with effect from the date it has been granted to such categories of officers i. e. 1.5.1989. The grievance of the petitioners stems from the fact that earlier their pay scale was equated with engineers, DSPs etc. in 1986 when the revision of pay scales took place but in 1989, a further revision took place and they were placed in lower pay scale than the above stated officers who were then placed in pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 with time scale of Rs. 3000- 4500 after 5 years service and a selection grade of Rs. 4100-5300 after 12 years of service. The petitioners, however, continued on the old pay scales of Rs. 2000-4000. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since at one point of time the pay scales were equated with those of engineers, doctors etc. therefore, action of Government without any conscious decision to delink them is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the respondents states that except for an interlude from 1986 to 1989 when the petitioners were erroneously granted this pay scale, they were never categorized in the same pay bracket as those of doctors, engineers and DSPs and therefore, in the year 1989 this anomaly was corrected. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that simply because at one point of time posts were equated would not give any enforceable right in favour of the petitioners. I have considered this aspect of the matter and I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right the same pay scale as that of doctors, engineers, DSPs etc on the parity of equal pay for equal work unless they demonstrate by placing on record cogent material that their nature of duties/responsibilities are similar to those of class of officers mentioned above with whom the petitioners want to be equated. I find sustenance of this view from a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case tilted as State of West Bensal & Anr. Vs. I find sustenance of this view from a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case tilted as State of West Bensal & Anr. Vs. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association & Ors reported as 2010(2) RSJ 389 wherein in para 17 and 21 it has been observed as follows, this prayer necessarily has to be declined:- “17. It is now well-settled that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one of the functions of the Pay Commission is to identify the posts which deserve a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts. The Pay Commission has two functions; to revise the existing pay scale, by recommending revised pay scales corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales and, secondly, make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. Therefore, the mere fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same pay scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay scale. As noticed above, one post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher pay scale and another post which is considered to have a proper pay scale may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay scale but not any higher pay scale. Therefore, the benefit of higher pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of the subject post and holders of reference category posts, discharge duties and functions identical with, or similar to, each other and that the continuation of disparity is irrational and unjust. The respondents have neither pleaded nor proved that the holders of post of Inspectors (Cooperative Societies), Extension Officers (Panchayat) and KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) were discharging duties and functions similar to the duties and functions of Inspector-AMW. Hence, the prayers in the original writ petition could not have been granted. The respondents have neither pleaded nor proved that the holders of post of Inspectors (Cooperative Societies), Extension Officers (Panchayat) and KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) were discharging duties and functions similar to the duties and functions of Inspector-AMW. Hence, the prayers in the original writ petition could not have been granted. In fact, that is why the learned single Judge rightly held that whether the posts were equivalent and whether there could be parity in pay are all matters that have to be considered by expert bodies and the remedy of the respondent was to give a representation to the concerned authority and the court cannot grant any specific scale of pay to them. 18 xxxx 19 xxxx 20 xxxx 21. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. However, in view of the submission made by the State Government, we direct the State Government to extend the benefit of Pay Scale No. 10 (4500- 9700) to the Inspectors - AMW, to take effect notionally from 1.1.1996, with actual monetary benefits with effect from 1.1.2008. We make it clear that this will not come in the way of the respondents representing or challenging the date on which the actual effect has been given (1.1.2008) in accordance with law, if they want the actual effect from a date between 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2008. ” Learned counsel for the petitioners has then contended with reference to the data reflected in the petition which is extracted herebelow:- Post FSL Madhuban Central Forensic Lab Director 5100-6100 5100-6100 Dy. Director 3700-5000 3700-5000 Asstt. Director 3000-4500 3000-4500 Sr. Scin. Officers 2000-3500 2200-4000 Sr. Scien. Asstt 2000-3200 1640-2900 Scientific Asst 1600-2600 1400-2600 that all other officers of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban are getting similar pay scales as the employees who are engaged in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory except the senior scientific officer i. e the post held by the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners also perform similar duties and are engaged in similar laboratories. Therefore, discrimination made on this count is clearly violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. I find merit in this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners also perform similar duties and are engaged in similar laboratories. Therefore, discrimination made on this count is clearly violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. I find merit in this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondents who are on notice should appropriately explain this situation as to why other officials of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban are getting similar pay scales as those of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory except for the petitioners who are senior scientific officers. There being no explanation to this, I am of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-considered by the respondents in the light of the fact that the petitioners cannot be discriminated in the matter of pay scales when they are performing similar duties and similar functions as those employees of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The petitioners assertion is seemingly found to be plausible because the other officials of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban are all enjoying the same pay scales . Hence, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid fact as to why senior scientific officers in Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban are getting pay scales of 2000-3500 while other counter parts in Central Forensic Science Laboratory are getting pay scales of 2200-4000. They would be obliged to pass a speaking order by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.