Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 961 (HP)

Navneet Gupta v. State of H. P

2012-12-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. State Government has framed the Rules called “H.P. Industries Department, Store Inspection Officer (Textiles) (Class-II Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules” for brevity sake). The pay scale of the post was Rs.2000-3500. The same was revised to Rs.6400-10640 with effect from 1.1.1996. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Store Inspection Officer (Textiles) (Class-II Gazetted) on 20.10.2001 in the pay scale of Rs.6400-10640. In the State of Punjab, the pay scale of one Sh. Tehal Singh Sekho, Project Manager (Store Inspection Officer), who was in the pay scale of Rs.7220-10980, was revised to Rs.10300-34800 + 4600, as grade pay on 25.9.2009. Petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 + 4200 as grade pay on 21.10.2009. Petitioner made representation seeking removal of anomaly on 4.1.2010 to the Commissioner Industries, Himachal Pradesh. The Director, Industries and Commerce, Punjab Chandigarh sent a communication dated 8.6.2010 to the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh informing him that in the Department of Industries and Commerce in the State of Punjab, the pay scale of Store Inspection Officer was Rs.7000-10980 before 1.1.2006. The Director, Industries and Commerce, Punjab, Chandigarh also sent a communication to the Commissioner Industries, Himachal Pradesh on 15.12.2010 informing that though the post of Store Inspection Officer permanently exists, however, Project Manager/Functional Managers of the Department were posted on this post in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect from 1.1.1986 and Rs.7000-10980 with effect from 1.1.1996. Representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 14.11.2011. 2. Mr. Subhash Sharma has vehemently argued that the action of respondents not to grant the petitioner pay scale of Rs.7000-10980 with effect from 20.10.2001 is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the representation of the petitioner on 14.11.2011. He then contended that the post of Store Inspection Officer (Textiles) is comparable with the post of Project Manager/Functional Manager existing in the State of Punjab. He also relied upon the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified by the Department of Industries and Commerce, Punjab on 12.4.2007 whereby in Appendix, the post of Store Inspection Officer and Functional Manager exist in the pay scale of Rs. 700010980. 3. Mr. He also relied upon the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified by the Department of Industries and Commerce, Punjab on 12.4.2007 whereby in Appendix, the post of Store Inspection Officer and Functional Manager exist in the pay scale of Rs. 700010980. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since no post of Store Inspection Officer (Textiles) exists in the State of Punjab, the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 was converted to Rs.6400-10640 with effect from 1.1.1996. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. According to Annexure P-9 dated 19.5.1998, the pay scale of Functional Manager/Project Manager was revised from Rs.2000-3500 to Rs.7000-10980. According to the rules called “The Punjab Industries Non-Technical (Group) Service Rules, 2007”, the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Controller of Stores/Assistant Director (Data), Research Officer/Store Inspection Officer and Functional Manager existed in the pay scale of Rs.7000-10980. The Director, Industries and Commerce, Punjab, Chandigarh informed the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh that in the Department of Industries and Commerce, the pay scale of Store Inspection Officer was Rs.7000-10980 before 1.1.2006. The same has been reiterated vide Annexure P-6 dated 15.12.2010. It is, thus, duly established that the pay scale of Store Inspection Officer in the State of Punjab was Rs.7000-10980 before 1.1.2006 and the same decision is reflected in the rules called “The Punjab Industries Non-Technical (Group) Service Rules, 2007” notified on 12.4.2007. In the State of Punjab, one Sh. Tehal Singh Sekho, Project Manager (Store Inspection Officer), who was working in the pay scale of Rs.7220-10980, his pay scale was revised to Rs.10300-34800 + 4600 grade pay. The same pay scale has been paid to the petitioner vide Annexure P-3. It further strengths the case of the petitioner that the post of petitioner in all respect is comparable with the post of Project Manager (Store Inspection Officer) working in the Director Industries and Commerce, Punjab. The Principal Secretary (Industries) while rejecting the representation of the petitioner has not assigned any reason vide order dated 14.11.2011. The Principal Secretary (Industries) ought to have given reasons while rejecting the representation of the petitioner after taking into consideration all the pleas taken by the petitioner in his representation. The respondent-State while adopting the pay scales must also look into the functionality of the post. The pay scales cannot be granted or denied merely by applying conversion. The Principal Secretary (Industries) ought to have given reasons while rejecting the representation of the petitioner after taking into consideration all the pleas taken by the petitioner in his representation. The respondent-State while adopting the pay scales must also look into the functionality of the post. The pay scales cannot be granted or denied merely by applying conversion. It is evident from the material placed on record that the post of Store Inspection Officer (Textiles) is equal status post vis-à-vis the duties being discharged by the Project Manager/Functional Manager in the State of Punjab. 6. The Apex Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others versus G.S. Uppal and others, (2008) 7 SCC 375 has held 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. The Apex Court has 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. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-10 dated 14.11.2011 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release the pay scale of ` 7000-10980 to the petitioner with effect from 20.10.2001 and pay the arrears with interest @ 6% per annum, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is released. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.