Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2990 (ALL)

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2017-12-19

SIDDHARTH

body2017
ORDER : SIDDHARTH, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the quashing of the order dated 08.02.2016, passed by respondent No. 3, Municipal, Nagar Nigam Varanasi, whereby his prayer for grant of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, revised Pay Scale Rs. 5200-20200, Grade Pay 2400 being paid to the Sanitary Supervisor at Noida and Aligarh, has been rejected. The petitioners have also prayed that the State Government may be directed to pay the aforesaid Pay Scale to them. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 17.01.1994 as Sanitary Supervisor, in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi on compassionate basis. The petitioner No. 2 was engaged on daily wages in 1988 and was made regular Sanitary Supervisor in the year 1993. The claim of trained Sanitary Supervisor for granting them Pay Scale of 4000-100-6000 was engaging the attention of the State Government since 2007 and the State Government issued an order directing Director Local Bodies, U.P. to provide its report stating whether the trained Sanitary Supervisors are being given Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 (now Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 2400) as being paid to the Sanitary Supervisor at Noida. The Municipal Commissioner, Varanasi submitted his report dated 31.01.2008 to Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Nagar Vikas, stating that such Supervisors are being paid Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 which is being paid in Noida and in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi only the petitioner No. 1 is a trained Sanitary Supervisor. On 08.12.2008, the Director, Local Bodies issued a letter to Municipal Commissioners of Nagar Nigams of Lucknow, Kanpur, Gorakhpur, Varanasi, Bareilly, Ghaziabad, Meerut and Allahabad, asking whether the trained Sanitary Supervisors are being given Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 (now Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 2400) as being paid to the Sanitary Supervisor at Noida and details of such Sanitary Supervisor be made available. By the letter dated 29.01.2009, the Municipal Commissioner, Varanasi submitted his report that no trained Sanitary Supervisor in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi is being paid Rs. 4000-100-6000 and the petitioner No. 1 is the only trained Sanitary Supervisor. 2400) as being paid to the Sanitary Supervisor at Noida and details of such Sanitary Supervisor be made available. By the letter dated 29.01.2009, the Municipal Commissioner, Varanasi submitted his report that no trained Sanitary Supervisor in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi is being paid Rs. 4000-100-6000 and the petitioner No. 1 is the only trained Sanitary Supervisor. In a writ petition filed by Sanitary Supervisors working in Nagar Nigam, Aligarh, on directions of this Court, the State Government issued an Office Order dated 20.05.2010, sanctioning Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 with immediate effect to the Sanitary Supervisors of all Nagar Nigams with the condition that the additional expenses shall be borne by the Nagar Nigams through their own resources. The petitioner No. 2 thereafter acquired necessary training of Sanitary Supervisor. The petitioners represented their case before the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi for parity in pay band with the Sanitary Supervisors working in Aligarh and Noida, but the same was not decided and after filing a writ petition and thereafter a Contempt Petition, by the impugned order dated 08.02.2016 their representations have been rejected and hence this writ petition. 4. The respondent no. 3 has filed his Counter Affidavit stating that there is no criteria prescribed for appointment of Sanitary Supervisors either in the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 or the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 nor the State Government has prescribed any separate service conditions for them. In the absence any statutory rules/administrative orders and eligibility criteria/mode of appointment, the petitioners can not be granted pay parity. It has been also stated that the Nagar Nigam Varanasi is not willing to share the additional burden to be incurred in enhancing the pay scale of the petitioners without any authority of law. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order has been passed on illegal distinction between the petitioners on the basis of their initial appointments on compassionate and daily wage basis to distinguish them from the similarly situated employees of Aligarh and Noida. Both the petitioners have passed Intermediate Examination with Science and also passed Sanitation Inspector Trade Examination and are discharging similar duties as in other Nagar Nigams but they have been denied equal pay for equal work. Both the petitioners have passed Intermediate Examination with Science and also passed Sanitation Inspector Trade Examination and are discharging similar duties as in other Nagar Nigams but they have been denied equal pay for equal work. The order of the State Government dated 20.05.2010 is binding on the respondent No. 2 which has been ignored and the impugned order has been illegally passed which deserves to be quashed. 6. The Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has argued that the petitioners are not entitled to pay parity with their Counterparts working in Noida and Aligarh in the absence of any statutory rules providing for the same and also on the ground that the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi lacks necessary resources to meet the financial burden arising out of the grant of higher pay scale to the petitioners. 7. The petitioner's Counsel has relied upon the Judgments of the Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Pantha Chatterjee and others, (2003) 6 SCC 469 , wherein it has been held that the part time Boarder Wing Home Guard performed the same duties as their regular counterparts and therefore, they are entitled to parity in employment, privileges and monitory benefits. 8. The second case relied upon by the petitioner is Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others v. G.S. Uppal and others, (2008) 7 SCC 375 , wherein the appellant corporation conceded that their should be parity in pay scales of its employees but took the defence of financial difficulties justifying disparity. The Apex Court held that in such a situations the Corporation should adopt economy measures, reduction of posts, etc., but can not refuse pay parity on this ground to its employees. 9. The third case relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner is Union of India v. Dineshana K.K., (2008) 1 SCC 585 wherein the Central Government accepted that there was apparent disparity and anomaly but did not took corrective measures on the ground that this anomaly springs from the report of pay commission itself. The High Court directed parity to be granted and the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the same. 10. The High Court directed parity to be granted and the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the same. 10. The fourth case relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner is State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and others, (2008) 12 SCC 219 , wherein the differentiation was sought to be made on the basis of difference in the initial source of recruitment of the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal. The Apex Court disallowed the same and granted pay parity. 11. The last case relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner is Union of India and others v. Rajesh Kumar Gond and others, 2013 (3) ESC 548, wherein the Apex Court allowed pay parity to the Junior Hindi Translator working in the office of Director General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics with the Central Secretariat Official Language Service translators on the ground that both the posts required the work of translator to be done and therefore, the denial of parity of pay on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" can not be justified. 12. The learned Counsel for the respondents has not placed any authority in support of their case. 13. After considering the rival contentions and the authorities cited by the Counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the State Government by its Office Order dated 20.05.2010 sanctioned pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 to the Sanitary Inspectors of All Nagar Nigams with the condition that the additional financial burden shall be borne by the Nagar Nigams from their own resources. The respondent No. 3 has defended that on account of lack of adequate resources Nagar Nigam Varanasi can not implement the above pay scale for the benefit of the petitioners and there are no rules/administrative orders which provide for grant of pay partily to the Sanitary Supervisors working in different Nagar Nigams. 14. A perusal of the authorities cited by the Counsel for the petitioners, shows that the Apex Court in the case of Pantha Chatterjee (supra) held that part time Boarder Wing Home Guard performed the similar duties as their regular counterpart and therefore pay parity was granted. In the case of Haryana State Minor Irrigation (supra) the Apex Court refused to accept the defence of paucity of funds for grant of pay parity and suggested that the Corporation should adopt economy measures instead. In the case of Haryana State Minor Irrigation (supra) the Apex Court refused to accept the defence of paucity of funds for grant of pay parity and suggested that the Corporation should adopt economy measures instead. In the case of Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. the Apex Court refused to accept the logic that on account of anomaly in the report of Pay Commission, the anomaly in pay parity can not be corrected. The Apex Court held that the Courts have power to correct such anomaly. In the case of State of Kerala (supra) the Apex Court refused to justify the differentiation in the pay on the ground of difference in the source of recruitment of different Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal. In the case in hand the respondents are taking the defence that the initial appointment of the petitioner No. 1 was on compassionate basis and that of the petitioner No. 2 was on daily wages, therefore, they can not be granted parity with their counterparts in other Nagar Nigams. The Apex Court has held otherwise. Finally the Apex Court has granted relief to the Hindi Translators of different departments only on the ground that their works are similar and therefore, they are entitled to similar pay scales. In the present case it is notable that Sanitary Supervisors perform similar duties of supervising sanitary work within the limits of their respective Nagar Nigam and therefore, there can be no criteria for granting different pay scale to sanitary inspectors working in different Nagar Nigams, within the State. 15. In view of the above discussions the impugned order dated 08.02.2016, passed by the respondent No. 3, Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 3 is directed to grant the pay scale of 4000-100-6000 (revised pay scale of 5200-20200 and grade pay of Rs. 2400) which is being paid to the Sanitary Supervisors in Nagar Nigams of Noida and Aligarh within a period of 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 16. The writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs.