Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 851 (AP)

Mohd. Arif Ali v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2012-09-12

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2012
ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O. Ms. No. 242, Finance and Planning Department dated 25.2.2000 as illegal, void, arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent-University to treat the post of Workshop Assistant on par with the post of Mechanic Gr. III/Technician Gr. III and to apply the Revised Pay Scales to the case of the petitioner on that basis and for payment of arrears to the petitioner. 2. On 24.6.1970 a notification was issued by the Professor and Head of Department, Geo-Physics, Osmania University inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Workshop Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.60-80. The qualifications prescribed for the said post were HSC or equivalent or ITI Certificate and experience of one year in a recognized mechanical workshop. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed as Workshop Assistant by the Principal, University College of Science, Osmania University vide University Order No.1804/A1-7/70 dated 28.8.1970 in the scheme entitled "Centre of Exploration Geophysics", at the Department of Geophysics, University College of Science, Osmania University. He joined duty on 29.8.1970 as a Workshop Assistant. Subsequently the pay scales of the University employees were revised with effect from 19.3.1969 in which the post of Workshop Assistant was allowed the pay scale of Rs.70-130 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.60-80. The petitioner was allowed the Revised scale ofRs.70-130 with effect from 29.8.1970 i.e., the date of his appointment in the post of Workshop Assistant. 3. The petitioner gave a representation on 22.6.1976 to the Head of Department of Geophysics requesting for award of the pay scales to him on par with Mechanic Gr. III/Technician Gr. III of the Central Workshop of University College of Science. The University vide its letter dated 15.10.1976 requested the Professor and Head of Department of Geophysics to furnish the qualifications, experience and other conditions prescribed for filling up the post of Workshop Assistant and also the nature of duties. The Professor and Head of Department of Geophysics vide his letter dated 19.7.1977 clarified that the qualifications prescribed in the notification dated 24.6.1970 for filling up the post of Workshop Assistant were HSC or equivalent with ITI certificate and experience of more than one year in a recognized Mechanic Workshop. The Professor and Head of Department of Geophysics vide his letter dated 19.7.1977 clarified that the qualifications prescribed in the notification dated 24.6.1970 for filling up the post of Workshop Assistant were HSC or equivalent with ITI certificate and experience of more than one year in a recognized Mechanic Workshop. The nature of duties performed by the Workshop Assistant were execution of fitting works of all kinds of mechanical parts of different apparatus, besides the maintenance of electrical and general wiring works in the department. The matter was put up to the University Syndicate at its 307th meeting held on 2.3.1982 for consideration, wherein it was decided to refer the case to the Government. This was done in view of Section 43-B of the Osmania University Act, 1959 which provides that the University shall not, without prior approval of the Government, divert earmarked funds for other purposes or upgrade any post or revise the scales of pay of its staff or implement any scheme which involves any matching contribution from the Government, or create a post or posts resulting in a recurring liability on the Government either immediately or in future. By a letter dated 17.6.1982 addressed to the Secretary to the Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Registrar, Osmania University proposed to allow the pay scale of Rs.425-650 to the Workshop Assistant in the Geophysics Department on par with Technicians-III. The Government i.e., Education Department requested the Registrar, Osmania University to refer the case to the Registrars Committee constituted in G.O. Rt. No.57, Education Department dated 21.1.1983 to submit a report on the pay scale anomalies of Non-Teaching Staff of the Universities and await the recommendations of the Committee. However, the Committee became defunct. Subsequently, consequent on revision of pay scales of the State Government employees in 1986, the Government constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. T. Navaneetha Rao, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Osmania University to look into the pay scales of the Non-teaching staff of the Universities in the State. Orders were issued in G.O. Ms. No.287, Finance and Planning Department, dated 3.12.1991 implementing the recommendations of the Prof. T. Navalleetha Rao Committee. T. Navaneetha Rao, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Osmania University to look into the pay scales of the Non-teaching staff of the Universities in the State. Orders were issued in G.O. Ms. No.287, Finance and Planning Department, dated 3.12.1991 implementing the recommendations of the Prof. T. Navalleetha Rao Committee. The terms of reference of the Pay Revision Commission, 1993 also included the revision of pay scales of the Non-teaching staff of Universities and orders were issued in G.O. (P) No. 347, Finance and Planning Department, dated 1.10.1993 implementing the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission, 1993 on the Non-teaching staff of Universities. 4. The petitioner filed WP No. 17116 of 1993 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating that the action of the Government in issuing these orders without removing the anomaly pointed out in respect of fixation of the pay scale to the post of Workshop Assistant is illegal and arbitrary and sought intervention of the Court to declare that the petitioner is entitled to pay in the scale that was fixed in favour of Mechanic Gr. III/Technician Gr. III with all consequential benefits including revision of pay of the petitioner from the date of his appointment with all arrears. 5. On 14.7.1999 the said writ petition was disposed of directing the Government to consider the proposal of the University to revise the pay scale of the post of Workshop Assistant on par with that of Mechanic Gr. III/Technician Gr. III contained in its letter dated 17.6.1982 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order of the Court. 6. Thereafter, the impugned orders were issued by the Government. The said order states that the qualifications for the post of Workshop Assistant are HSC or equivalent or ITI certificate with -experience of one year in any recognized Mechanical Workshop, that the qualifications for the post of Technician Gr. III were licence with Wireman Certificate with one year practical experience, that the qualifications are not similar, that the question of parity between the Workshop Assistant and Technician Gr. III does not arise, that Prof. T. Navaneetha Rao Committee which was constituted to look into the pay scales of the Non-teaching staff of the Universities and the Pay Revision Commissions of 1993 and 1999 did not establish any parity between the Technician Gr. III does not arise, that Prof. T. Navaneetha Rao Committee which was constituted to look into the pay scales of the Non-teaching staff of the Universities and the Pay Revision Commissions of 1993 and 1999 did not establish any parity between the Technician Gr. III and Workshop Assistant and it had assigned a higher scale to the Technician-Gr. III than the Workshop Assistant. This position had been informed to the Registrar of the Osmania University twice earlier by letters dated 22.9.1999 and 1.2.2000 with a request to communicate the same to the petitioner and that as the University did not take any action on those letters, the impugned order had been again issued rejecting the proposal of the University. 7. This order is assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 8. Heard Sri M. Sudheer Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 9. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the 1st respondent has to be set aside on the ground that the Government had passed it without comparing the qualifications and without giving any reasons and it had wrongly deprived the petitioner the pay scale of Mechanic Gr. III/Technician Gr. III. He also contended that the functions to be discharged by Mechanic Gr. III/Technician Gr. III in the Central Workshop and the functions to be discharged by the Workshop Assistant in the Geo-Physics Department are one and the same and that the only difference is with reference to the trade concerned and there was no justification in treating these two posts differently justifying different scales of pay. 10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the category of Workshop Assistant has no parity with the post of Mechanic Gr. III/Technician Gr. III. They contend that the qualifications for both the posts are different, that the impugned order has indicated the reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner and that question of parity of different posts have to be decided by an Expert Body and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot decide the question of parity of posts. 11. 11. Considering the respective submissions of the parties and pleadings, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Workshop Assistant on 24.6.1970 in the Geo-Physics Department of Osmania University and he seeks the scale of pay equivalent to the post of Mechanic Gr. III/Technician Gr. III in the Central Workshop of the University College of Science. Admittedly, the qualifications for the post of Workshop Assistant are HSC or equivalent and ITI certificate, experience of one year in any recognized Mechanical Workshop. The qualifications required for the post of Mechanic Gr. III/Technician Gr. III are licence with Wireman Certificate with one year practical experience. As can be seen from the above, the qualifications for the post of Workshop Assistant and the post of Technician/Mechanic Gr. III are different. 12. Although the In-charge Head, Centre for Exploration, Geophysics by his letter dated 13.11.1973 had stated that the qualifications and other conditions prescribed for the post of Workshop Assistant are identical to the posts of Mechanic/Technician Gr. III in the Central Workshop of the University College of Science and recommended the award of pay scales of Rs.90-192 to the petitioner with effect from 29.8.1970 treating the post of Workshop Assistant as equivalent to that of Technician Gr. III, the said proposals were put to the Osmania University Syndicate at its meeting held on 4.10.1974 and were not accepted by the Syndicate of the University. According to the counter-affidavit by the respondents this was communicated to the Professor and Head of Department of Geophysics, Osmania University dated 21.11.1974. 13. Notwithstanding the said decision of the Syndicate of the University, at the request of the petitioner in his representation dated 22.6.1976, the Professor and Head of Department of Geophysics had again stated in his letter dated 19.7.1977 that the post of Workshop Assistant and Mechanic Gr. III have similar duties and recommended that the petitioner be paid the scale of pay of Mechanic Gr. III. 14. This matter was put up to the .University Syndicate at its 307th meeting which was held on 2.3.1982 for consideration and the Syndicate had decided to refer the case to the Government and by letter dated 17.6.1982, the proposal of the University to treat both posts as equivalent was sent to the Government for consideration. 15. Although the matter was referred to the Registrars Committee constituted in G.O. Rt. 15. Although the matter was referred to the Registrars Committee constituted in G.O. Rt. No. 57, Education Department dated 21.1.1983 to submit a report on the pay scale anomalies of Non-teaching staff of the Universities, as the said Committee became defunct no action was taken. 16. Subsequently another committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. T. Navalleetha Rao, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Osmania University was constituted by the Government to look into the pay scales of the Non-teaching staff of the Universities in the State. Orders were issued in G.O. Ms. No. 287 Finance and Planning Department dated 3.12.1991 implementing the recommendations of the Prof. T. Navalleetha Rao Committee. 17. In 1993, the terms of reference of the Pay Revision Commission, 1993 also included the revision of pay scales of the Non-teaching staff of Universities and orders were issued in G.O. (P) No. 347, Finance and Planning Department dated 1.10.1993 implementing the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission, 1993 on the Non-teaching staff of Universities. 18. None of these Committees Commissions have held that the post of Workshop Assistant in the Geophysics Department is on par with the Technician Mechanic Gr. III and that persons employed as the Workshop Assistants should be given the pay scale of Technician Gr. III. 19. Admittedly, the concurrence of the Government is required to extend such benefit to the petitioner. But, the Government, in the impugned order, has given valid reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It held that the qualifications for the post are not similar and that no Expert Body such as Prof. T. Navalleetha Rao Committee or the Pay• Revision Commissions of 1993 and 1999 had established any parity between the Workshop Assistant and Technician/Mechanic Gr. III and that they have assigned a higher scale of pay of Technician/Mechanic Gr. III than to the Workshop Assistant. The reasons given in the impugned order cannot be said to be patently irrational, unjust, mala fide or arbitrary. 20. III and that they have assigned a higher scale of pay of Technician/Mechanic Gr. III than to the Workshop Assistant. The reasons given in the impugned order cannot be said to be patently irrational, unjust, mala fide or arbitrary. 20. It is settled law that issues of parity of posts have to be decided by an Expert Body, the Pay Revision Commissions or other Bodies specially constituted in that behalf by the Government which have expertise to consider the same, keeping in mind the factors like educational qualifications, experience and training, duties and responsibilities, skills required for performance of the duty, nature of work-arduous, hazardous, risky, unpleasant, manner of recruitment, extent of contact with the public and lack of promotional avenues. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and it does not have such expertise to decide the equivalence of posts. 21. In T. Venkateswarulu v. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, (2009) 1 SCC 552 = 2009 (4) ALD (NOC 46), the Supreme Court held at Para 25 as follows : "It is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not the Judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily Courts do not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies as several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure." 22. In State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 , the Supreme Court held at Para 5, p.79 as follows: "The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not always easy to apply. There are inherent" difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organisations, or eyen in the same organisation. The principle was originally enunciated as a part of the Directive Principles of Stale Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India, however, this Court said that this was a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies and held that the principle had to be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In that case a Driver-Constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration claimed equal salary as other drivers and this prayer was granted. In that case a Driver-Constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration claimed equal salary as other drivers and this prayer was granted. The same principle was subsequently followed for the purpose of granting relief in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. and Jaipal v. State of Haryana. In the case of Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) v. Union of India, however, this Court explained the principle of "equal pay for equal work" by holding that differentiation in pay scales among Government servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. In that case different pay scales fixed for Stenographers (Grade I) working in the Central Secretariat and those attached to the heads of subordinate offices on the basis of a recommendation of the Pay Commission was held as not violating Article 14 and as not being contrary to the principle of "equal pay for equal work". This Court also said that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court." 23. In Shiba Kumar Dutta v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 545 , the Supreme Court held at Para 3 as follows:- "The admitted position is that the petitioners, who are working as Fitters (T&G), had sought to be fused in the category of, and to be on a par with, Jig Borers. They sought equal pay on a par with them. They contend that they were drawing higher pay scales than the Fitter; instead of elevating their cadre and placing them in the higher pay scales, they have been brought down in the category as a Fitter after removing the two nomenclatures. Thereby, it is arbitrary on account of invidious discrimination. The Third Pay Commission had gone into that aspect of the matter and fixed the scales of pay. Thereafter, admitted, Expert Classification Committee and Anomalies Removal Committee had also gone into the matter and made distinction between them. Thereby, it is arbitrary on account of invidious discrimination. The Third Pay Commission had gone into that aspect of the matter and fixed the scales of pay. Thereafter, admitted, Expert Classification Committee and Anomalies Removal Committee had also gone into the matter and made distinction between them. Subsequently, nomenclature of all of them were removed and fused into one category, namely, Fitter Nomenclature and fitment is one of executive policy of the Government. Unless the action is arbitrary or there is invidious discrimination between persons similarly situated, doing same type of work, as is pointed out, it would be difficult for the Courts to go into the question of equation of posts or fitment into a particular scale of pay. They must be left to be decided by the Expert Committees and Government. The Courts cannot go into them and evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for each category. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in refusing to go into the question." 24. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infim1ity in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances without costs.