Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 885 (HP)

Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-11-27

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioners are working as Assistant Development Officers in the respondent-Board. The categories of Assistants, Accountants and Assistant Development Officers were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 160-400 prior to 1978. The same parity was maintained with effect from 1.1.1978 by placing three categories in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080. However, anomaly occurred in the year 1983 when the pay scale of Assistants (re-designated as Senior Assistants) was increased to Rs. 600-1120 but the pay scale of Accountants and Assistant Development Officers remained Rs. 570-1080. The anomaly in the case of Accountants was removed and they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1120 at par with the Assistants in the year 1985. The pay scales were revised with effect from 1.1.1986 whereby Assistants and Accountants were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 and the Assistants Development Officers were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640. In the general revision of pay scales, which took place with effect from 1.1.1996, the Assistants and Accountants were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5800-9200 and the Assistant Development Officers were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100. In the further revision of pay scales which has taken place with effect from 1.1.2006, Assistants and Accountants were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3800 and the pay scale of Assistant Development Officers has been revised to Rs. 10300-34800+3200. Petitioners have made several representations for the redressal of their grievance for removing the anomaly in their pay scale vis-à-vis Assistants and Accountants. The Chief Executive Officer of the Board has made recommendations for revision of pay scale of the petitioners on 9.1.1991 to the Special Secretary (Finance). The agenda item at page 40 of the paper book reads thus: “The Assistant Development Officer in the Board has to shoulder heavy responsibilities with regard to village Industries Development Programme. Each Assistant Development Officer has to prepare Financial Assistance cases under various village Industries under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission/Board and the financial extent of the cases ranges from 60.00 lacs to 80.00 lacs each district. This task includes identification of entrepreneurs scrutiny of loan papers, disbursement of funds in terms of sanction letters, watch and ward for the proper utilization of the sanctioned funds, preparation of utilization certificates, monitoring of units and pursuance of recovery from the financed units. This task includes identification of entrepreneurs scrutiny of loan papers, disbursement of funds in terms of sanction letters, watch and ward for the proper utilization of the sanctioned funds, preparation of utilization certificates, monitoring of units and pursuance of recovery from the financed units. The post of the Assistant Development Officer is a District Level posts, which has to exercise the control over the financed units of his jurisdiction and has to maintain liaison with the District Authorities besides coordination of activities with various district agencies engaged in the rural development programmes. At present the Assistant Development Officers in the Board are being allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 whereas the ministerial staff posted under them are enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as a result of which it is getting practically difficult for the Assistant Development Officers to extract work from the officials getting higher scale of pay. Keeping in view the work load and responsibilities mentioned above, the pay scale of the Assistant Development Officers may be equated with the Managers District Industries Centres i.e. Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.” 2. The Chief Executive Officer of the Board has further taken up the matter with the State vide letter dated 26.9.1992. The academic and technical qualification of the petitioners, i.e. graduate or equivalent from recognized University having at least two years experience in village industries establishment and matric in 2nd division/plus one/plus two having five years experience in the village industries establishment were also mentioned in the communication. The duties of the Assistant Development Officers were also spelt out as under: i) To identify the artisans of different trades and to prepare their financial Assistance cases. ii) To scrutinize the loan cases and to submit them to the Head Office for sanction. iii) To prepare the technical feasibility report of the each loan case. iv) To disburse the sanctioned account to the beneficiary as per the terms of the sanction letter. v) To watch the setting up of the units and to provide the technical assistance to them. vi) To watch the utilization of funds and to prepare the utilization certificate thereof. vii) To conduct the monitoring of the installed units and to take appropriate steps to recover the due and overdue amounts. v) To watch the setting up of the units and to provide the technical assistance to them. vi) To watch the utilization of funds and to prepare the utilization certificate thereof. vii) To conduct the monitoring of the installed units and to take appropriate steps to recover the due and overdue amounts. viii) To have liaison with the other district officer as well as to encourage the other agencies which are engaged in the implementation of Khadi and village Industries programme. ix) To have full control over the financed units. 3. Case of the petitioners was taken up by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board with the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Industries) on 15.11.1994. The Chief Executive Officer again on 27.9.1995 has taken up the matter with the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Industries) for revision of pay scale. However, the fact of the matter is that grievance of the petitioner has not been rederessed, which has resulted into filing of the present petition. 4. The Court had passed the following order on 3.1.2012, which reads thus: “Case of the petitioners has already been recommended for maintaining parity with Assistant Accountants by the Board of Directors of respondent No. 1. However, the State Government has not taken any decision till date. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the Principal Secretary (Finance)/ Secretary (Industries) to take a final decision in the matter within a period of three weeks from today and apprise the Court by filing a compliance affidavit, by the next date of hearing.” 5. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer has sent the communication to the Principal Secretary (Industries) on 17.2.2012 with his comments. The operative portion of the comments reads thus: “In view of above it is a fact that the Assistants, Accountants and Assistant Development Officers were placed in the same pay scales upto 1978 and subsequently the Assistants and Accountants were granted higher pay scales by the State Government as is evident from the enclosed chart at Annexure-A. However, taking into consideration there duties, responsibilities, the Board requested the Government to grant higher pay scales at par with Assistants/Accountants as the Board itself cannot grant higher pay scales. The proposal of sanction of staff, revision of pay scales and other matters are considered and decided by a committee consisting of the Administrative Secretary to the Government of H.P., the Finance secretary to the Government of H.P. and M.D. of Corporation/Boards.” 6. Thereafter, the Court directed the State Government to take decision as per order dated 15.6.2012. The fact of the matter is that the case was taken up by the Service Committee vide proceedings dated 3.8.2012. The Service Committee has rejected the case of the petitioners for maintaining their parity in pay scales at par with the Assistants now re-designated as Senior Assistants and Accountants now re-designated as Senior Assistants (Accounts). 7. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that prior to the year 1978, the pay scales of three categories, i.e. Assistants, Accountants and Assistant Development Officers were same i.e. Rs. 160-400. The same parity was maintained upto 1.1.1978 when these categories were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5701080. The anomaly has occurred in the year 1983 when the Assistants were granted the pay scale of Rs. 600-1120 but the Accountants and Assistant Development Officers were left out. The grievance of the Accountants was redressed by the Board by granting the pay scale at par with the Assistants but again the Assistant Development Officers were left out. In the general revision of pay scales, the anomaly still persisted whereby the Assistants and Accountants were granted pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 but the Assistant Development Officers were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640. The anomaly has been permitted to occur again when with effect from 1.1.1996, the categories of Assistants and Accountants have been granted the pay scale of ` 5800-9200 and the category of the Assistant Development Officers has been granted the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100. The same anomaly has again been repeated in the general revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.2006. Thus, it is clear that the posts of Assistants, Accountants and Assistant Development Officers have been treated at par for the purpose of revision of pay scales upto 1.1.1978. It was only in the year 1983 when the Assistants were given the pay scale of Rs. 600-1120, but denied the same pay scale to the Accountants and Assistant Development Officers. Thus, it is clear that the posts of Assistants, Accountants and Assistant Development Officers have been treated at par for the purpose of revision of pay scales upto 1.1.1978. It was only in the year 1983 when the Assistants were given the pay scale of Rs. 600-1120, but denied the same pay scale to the Accountants and Assistant Development Officers. It is not understandable that when the grievance of the Accountants has been redressed in the year 1985 by granting them the pay scale of Rs. 600-1120, why the Assistant Development Officers have been denied the same pay scale. There was further arbitrariness in the action of the respondent-Board whereby the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 has been confined to the Assistants and Accountants but denied the same to the Assistant Development Officers. Case of the petitioners has been recommended by the Board from time to time, as enumerated hereinabove. In the resolutions passed by the Board and the recommendations made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, it has been specifically highlighted that the petitioners are discharging the duties of higher responsibilities. It has also been highlighted that the post of Assistant Development Officer is a district level post and he has to exercise the control over the financed units of his jurisdiction and has to maintain liaison with the district authorities besides coordinating the activities with various district agencies engaged in the rural development programme. The Assistant Development Officers are required to deal financial assistance cases under various village industries under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission/Board to the extent of Rs. sixty lakhs to Rs. eighty lakhs each district. This task includes identification of entrepreneurs scrutiny of loan papers, disbursement of funds in terms of sanction letters, watch and ward for the proper utilization of the sanctioned funds, preparation of utilization certificates, monitoring of units and pursuance of recovery from the financed units. The entire staff, including Assistants and Accountants works under the Assistant Development Officers. The Annual Confidential Reports of the categories of Assistants and Accountants are also recorded by the Assistant Development Officers. The salary to the staff is also released by the Assistant Development Officers. The post of Assistant Development Officer is higher post and the pay scale of this category if not higher should have been at least at par with the Senior Assistants and Senior Assistants (Accounts). The salary to the staff is also released by the Assistant Development Officers. The post of Assistant Development Officer is higher post and the pay scale of this category if not higher should have been at least at par with the Senior Assistants and Senior Assistants (Accounts). The scope of judicial review in the revision of pay scales is very limited. However, when the pay fixation is unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant facts, the Court can go into the matter of the revision of pay scale. The Service Committee while deliberating the matter, as recommended by the Board, has over-looked all these aspects. It was necessary for the Service Committee to look into the duties being discharged by the Assistant Development Officers vis-à-vis Senior Assistants and Senior Assistant (Accounts). The order passed by the Service Committee dated 3.8.2012 is not a speaking order. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tube Wells Corporation and others versus G.S. Uppal and others, (2008) 7 SCC 375 have held that in matters of fixation of pay and determination of parity scope of judiciary is limited, however, Courts can interfere in the matter if the pay fixation is unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant facts. Their Lordships have held as under: “21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. [see K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406].” 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure R-1/A dated 18.8.2012 alongwith proceedings of the Service Committee of the H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board dated 3.8.2012 are quashed and set aside. [see K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406].” 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure R-1/A dated 18.8.2012 alongwith proceedings of the Service Committee of the H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board dated 3.8.2012 are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to revise the pay scales of the petitioners at par with the Senior Assistants with effect from 1983 and to release and pay the arrears to them alongwith interest @ 9% per annum within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner(s) before the respondents. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.