Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 816 (HP)

Harsh Mani v. State of Himachal

2012-11-09

DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJAY KAROL

body2012
Judgment Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 20.5.2009 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No. 2553 of 2008. 2. The facts relevant for the decision of the case are that the appellants and proforma respondents No. 4 and 5 were employees of erstwhile Nahan Foundry Limited and they were initially recruited as Sub Branch Incharges and later promoted as Branch Incharges. Nahan Foundry Limited was taken over by the State of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 1.10.1988. The pay of Branch In-charges was fixed in the pay scale of Clerks vide order dated 18.10.1993 and that of Sub Branch Incharges was fixed in the pay scale of Daftries/Record Sorters w.e.f 1.10.1988. All these persons were re-designated as Senior Clerks w.e.f. 1.10.1993. 3. The appellants and proforma respondents submitted representation praying to the State that the Sub Branch Incharges could not have been equated with Class-IV employees and should have been equated with Clerks and the Branch Incharges should have been equated with Senior Clerks. Thereafter, the appellants approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application No.1250 of 1995. On abolition of the Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 and registered as CWP (T) No.2553 of 2008. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State. The main submission of Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, is that Sub Branch Incharges were doing a lot of administrative functions and therefore, should not have been equated with Class-IV employees and should have been equated with Clerks and consequently the Branch Incharges should have been equated with Clerks. It is not disputed that the salary of Sub Branch Incharges was equivalent to that of Daftries/Record Sorters and the salary of Branch Incharges was equivalent to that of Clerks. The scale of Senior Clerks and Sub inspector was higher than the salary being paid to the Branch Incharges. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, submits that only the scale of pay should not have been taken into consideration but the other duties etc. The scale of Senior Clerks and Sub inspector was higher than the salary being paid to the Branch Incharges. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, submits that only the scale of pay should not have been taken into consideration but the other duties etc. should have also been taken into consideration. 5. We cannot loose sight of the fact that Nahan Foundry Limited as compared to the Department of Irrigation and Public Health was a small organization. The said unit was on the verge of closure. It was taken over mainly with the intention of giving protection to its employees. The competent authority in fact merged the ministerial staff by taking into consideration all the kind of materials. It is clear that the appellants, who were all working as Branch Incharges at the time of take over, were doing work which was similar to that of Clerks. It may be true that as Sub Branch Incharges they may have been doing some work of clerical nature but when equation is made a balance has to be stuck. The Secretary (Public Works) had passed an order dated 23.11.1994, which is a well reasoned order and the learned Single Judge has rightly held that it calls for no interference. It is well settled law that it is for the State to decide how equation in such cases has to be done. Unless it is shown that the equation is totally an arbitrary, the same cannot be held to be invalid. 6. In the present case the services of the appellants were taken over w.e.f. 1.10.1988. At that time they were all working as Branch Incharges, doing work similar to that of Clerks and getting a salary equivalent to that of Clerks. They were, therefore, taken over as Clerks but were re-designated as Senior Clerks w.e.f. 1.10.1993 by the order dated 18.10.1993 itself. Effectively, all these persons were made Senior Clerks w.e.f. 1.10.1993. In our view the appellants have been treated reasonably by the employer. 7. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.