Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 42 (GAU)

State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Bamar Yinyo

2016-01-21

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant also heard Mr. D. Boje, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The State of Arunachal Pradesh by way of this writ appeal has challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 10.9.2015 passed in WP (C)410(AP)2014. 3. The brief facts of the case is that appellant had invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for implementation of the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission in to in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that as the State of Arunachal Pradesh has not implemented the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission in to. the petitioner and the employees of the State Government have been deprived of important allowances like the Children Education Allowance and Transport Allowance. The State Government in their affidavit-in-opposition have stated in Para-8 is as follows: “8.... That with regard to the statement made in Para-11 of the writ petition, the deponent states that though most of the allowances of 6th Central Pay Commission have already been implemented for State Government employees by the State Government, the Children Education Allowances and Transport Allowances etc could not be implemented in the State so far due to acute financial constraints of State Government and the same would be implemented in a phased manner as and when the financial health of the state improves for with the State Government is striving hard. The Transport Allowances and Children Education Allowances of 6th CPC are subject to certain inherent terms and conditions and therefore are not uniformly admissible to all spirit. The submissions of the respondents that they will implement such recommendation whenever is available is a not a proper response while the recommendations was made in the year 2008 and now its 2015 The State Government is to produce the required funds by their own initiation and lethargy and inaction of the part of the State Respondents may be a matter of serious concern if not properly adhered to.” 4. The writ petition was subsequently allowed by directing the State respondents to implement all recommendations/admissible allowances as provided in the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC, in short). 5. Ms. The writ petition was subsequently allowed by directing the State respondents to implement all recommendations/admissible allowances as provided in the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC, in short). 5. Ms. G Deka, learned Senior Government Advocate submits that as per the Office Memorandum dated 05.01.2008 the 6th Central Pay Commission, (CPC, in short) has not been adopted in to in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. This is clearly reflected in Para-4 of the Office Memorandum dated 05.01.2008 which states “Status-quo/existing position will continue in respect of other allowances”. Without going further into the merit of the case, we would like to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of State of West Bengal Vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee & Ors. reported in (2010)11 SCC 694 which is to the effect that: “14.... This Court time and again cautioned that the Court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compel the Government to implement the same. Equation of posts and equation of salaries is a matter which is best left to an expert body. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Even the recommendations of the Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection the Courts cannot compel the State to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commissions though it is an expert body. The State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept the recommendations of the Pay Commissions. [See Union of India Vs. Aran Jyoti Kundu (2007) 7 SCC 472 and State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.]. It is no doubt, the constitutional Courts clothed with power of judicial review have jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have remedy only if the Government employees and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, that the State Government is also providing passage at concessional rates for State Government employees through its State Transport Services Buses in some locations. Likewise, the State Government is also providing stipend and book grants etc to all APST students including the wards of the State Government employees.” 6. However, that the State Government is also providing passage at concessional rates for State Government employees through its State Transport Services Buses in some locations. Likewise, the State Government is also providing stipend and book grants etc to all APST students including the wards of the State Government employees.” 6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has observed that as there is no Pay Commission in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the State Government by issuing office memorandum dated 05.01.2008 has adopted the revised pay scale structure of the CCS Revised Pay Rules, 2008 and decided to make it applicable to the employees under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh as per entitlement and admissibility vide Office Memorandum No. FIN/E-II/22/2008 dated 05.01.2008. Learned Single Judge has also cited in Para-24 of the impugned judgment & order as follows: “24... Apparently, there is no dispute that all provisions, as has prayed by the petitioner, has been incorporated in the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and there is also no obstacle clause that same will be considered, at certain intervening period. The reply of the respondent authority clearly indicates that only because of the fond constraint, they could not implement all those recommendations. In view of the pretext that India is a Welfare country and all scheme has been provided for the welfare of all sections of the society and the scheme of Children Education Allowances, Hostel Subsidy, Uniform Allowance, Transport Allowance, etc. certainly aim at giving big relief as well as to uplift the socio-economic condition and for full all-round development of the people of India. While the State of Arunachal Pradesh has accepted the recommendations of the said 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), then they, on their own, cannot deny to provide the lawful privilege of the citizens. The State authority is under an obligation to address the grievances of the employees and denial of the same, will tantamount to violation of right to livelihood as enshrined in the constitution of India. The above mentioned scheme being a welfare-oriented one, should be implemented by the State authority in letter and are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction while fixing the pay scale for a given post.” 7. In the case of M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association Vs. Stale of M.P. & Anr. The above mentioned scheme being a welfare-oriented one, should be implemented by the State authority in letter and are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction while fixing the pay scale for a given post.” 7. In the case of M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association Vs. Stale of M.P. & Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 646 , the Supreme Court has held as follows: “13...Pay Commission are constituted for evaluating the duties and functions of the employees and the nature thereof vis-a-vis the educational qualifications required therefor. Although the Pay Commission is considered to be an expert body, the State in its wisdom and in furtherance of a valid policy decision may or may not accept its recommendation.” 8. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and at the matter of implementation of the Central Pay Commission (CPC, in short) is quite settled, the State Government is at liberty to apply the pay recommendation as per their financial capacity and as per law. It need not apply the recommendation of the 6th CPC in to. As such, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not correct in giving the direction in the WP (C) 410(AP)2014 to apply the recommendations of the 6th CPC in to. 9. In that view of the matter, the judgment and order dated 10.09.2015 passed in WP (C) 410 (AP) 2014 is hereby set aside. 10. Notwithstanding the above, the State Government is at liberty to implement any of the provisions of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC, in short) that has not been implemented by keeping in mind the undertaking given by it in para-8 of the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the respondents 1, 3 & 4 noted above. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed.