Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 905 (HP)

Sita Ram Dhiman v. State Of H. P.

2017-08-03

PREM KUMAR, V.K.SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, Chairman. (Oral) - M.A. No. 1023 of 2017 Replies not filed. 2. Heard. The application which is duly supported by an affidavit, is allowed in view of the grounds stated therein. Consequently, copy of the office order dated 2nd February, 2002 filed along with the application as Annexure P-16, is ordered to be taken on record. 3. Document(s) in rebuttal not intended to be filed. 4. The application stands disposed of. T.A. No. 6096 of 2015. 5. Heard. 6. The writ petition (now transferred application) has been filed on the following substantive prayer:- (i). "It is prayed that the suitable writ, or directions in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued to the respondent No. 1, The Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Govt, of HP to revise the pay scale of the petitioner w.e.f. 22.2.2000 to 31.8.2004 from Rs. 7220-11660+400 as special allowance to Rs. 10025-15000 Plus Rs. 800/- as special allowance at par with the same post and for same work in HP High Court and erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal." 7. Shorn of details, the case of the applicant is that vide office order dated 20.11.1989, Annexure P-1, he was promoted as Personal Assistant in the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ''the Commission''), which was subsequently upgraded to that of Assistant Registrar in the pay scale of Rs. 7220-1-1660+Rs.400/- as special allowance "as a measure personal to the incumbent holding the post of Personal Assistant presently", vide letter dated 29th January, 2000, Annexure P-2, addressed by the F.C.-cum-Secretary (F&S) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Registrar of the Commission. 8. Consequently, the applicant was appointed as Assistant Registrar (Gazetted Class-II) in the Commission in the aforesaid pay scale, vide notification dated 22nd February, 2000, Annexure P-3. 9. Subsequently, the applicant submitted representation dated 03.10.2000 along with supporting documents, Annexure P-4, to the Registrar of the Commission seeking revision of pay scale of the post of Assistant Registrar from Rs. 7220-11660+Rs.400/-as special allowance to Rs. 10025-15100+Rs.800/- as special allowance, followed by representations dated 05.02.2001, Annexure P-10, to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary(F&S)to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, 9th April, 2002, Annexure P-11, 04.11.2003, Annexure P-12, and 25.08.2004, Annexure P-13, to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Finance)/Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 10. 7220-11660+Rs.400/-as special allowance to Rs. 10025-15100+Rs.800/- as special allowance, followed by representations dated 05.02.2001, Annexure P-10, to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary(F&S)to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, 9th April, 2002, Annexure P-11, 04.11.2003, Annexure P-12, and 25.08.2004, Annexure P-13, to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Finance)/Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 10. In the meanwhile, vide office order dated 2nd February, 2002, Annexure P-16, the applicant, who had already been promoted as Assistant Registrar, vide the aforesaid notification dated 22nd February, 2000, Annexure P-3, pursuant to the up-gradation of the, post of Personal Assistant, which he was holding at that time as a measure personal to him, vide the aforesaid communication dated 29th January, 2000, Annexure P-2, was granted notional promotion as Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs. 7220-11660 w.e.f. 01.05.1995 with the rider that "However, this would give no benefit of seniority vis-a-vis the other staff members or arrears of pay to him." 11. Thus, with the issuance of the aforesaid office order dated 2nd February, 2002, Annexure P-16, the chain of promotions of the applicant from Senior Scale Stenographer to Personal Assistant (Annexure P-1), then as Private Secretary on notional basis w.e.f. 01.05.1995 (Annexure P-16) and finally as Assistant Registrar (Annexure P-3) was complete. 12. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired as Assistant Registrar on 31.08.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. 13. According to the applicant, when the authorities did not take any action on his representations, except raising irrelevant queries, he was constrained to file an original application, being O.A. No. 2056 of 2005 in the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, which on abolition of the said Tribunal, was transferred to the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and registered as CWP(T) No. 12138 of 2008, Sita Ram Dhiman v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others , which was disposed of vide order dated 18.08.2010, Annexure P-5, which reads as under:- "learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition and seeks liberty to file a representation to respondent No. 1. Liberty granted. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from today. Any such representation made shall be considered on sympathetic and equitable grounds in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt thereof. Petition stands disposed of accordingly." 14. Liberty granted. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from today. Any such representation made shall be considered on sympathetic and equitable grounds in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt thereof. Petition stands disposed of accordingly." 14. Pursuant to the above order dated 18.08.2010, Annexure P-5, the representation dated 9th September, 2010, Annexure P-6, submitted by the applicant to the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, was disposed of vide order dated 04.01.2011 and conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 6th January, 2011, Annexure P-8, operative part whereof contained in paras 8 to 10 is as under: - 8. "The post of Assistant Registrar does not exist in the State Consumer Commissions of the neighbouring States i.e. Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Rajasthan and UT Chandigarh. However, the Government of India has created some posts of Assistant Registrars in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. New Delhi in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200, but the GOI pattern is not followed in the State of H.P. 9. In so far as the contention of the applicant regarding pay scale allowed to the posts of Record Keeper and Reader is concerned, the post of Record Keeper exists in both offices i.e. H.R High Court and erstwhile HP. Administrative Tribunal. The post of Record Keeper is equivalent to the post of Senior Assistant and as such scale of pay has rightly been allowed to this post at par with Sr. Assistant. In so far as the post of Reader is concerned, no deviation has been made with regard to grant of pay scale and the pay scale has been allowed to the post in Consumer Commission at par with the pay scale allowed to the post in H.P. High Court, H.P. Lokayukta and erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. 10. In view of the above, the undersigned is convinced that the rep resentationist has no claim to demand the equivalence of pay scale at par with the H.P. High Court and the representation of Shri Sita Ram Dhiman being devoid of merit, is hereby rejected." 15. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh byway of C.W.P. No. 6605 of 2011, which on establishment of this Tribunal, has been transferred to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 6096 of 2015 (the present matter). 16. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh byway of C.W.P. No. 6605 of 2011, which on establishment of this Tribunal, has been transferred to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 6096 of 2015 (the present matter). 16. The case of the applicant is supported by the Commission in its reply and communication dated 2nd April, 2003 along with the relevant documents, Annexure P-14, addressed by the Registrar of the Commission to the Principal Secretary (Food and Supplies) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and U.O. note dated 11th February, 2003, Annexure P-15, sent by the President of the Commission to the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 17. However, respondents No. 1 and 2 - State are contesting the claim basing their averments on the aforesaid order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as conveyed to the applicant, vide letter dated 6th January, 2011, Annexure P-8. Additionally, it is pleaded that the pay scale claimed by the applicant as Assistant Registrar is admissible to the post of Registrar in Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is above in hierarchy to that of Assistant Registrar. Relevant part of the aforesaid order dated 04.01.2011 contained in paras 8 to 10 stands already extracted hereinbefore, but is reproduced again for the sake of convenience and ready reference:- 8. "The post of Assistant Registrar does not exist in the State Consumer Commissions of the neighbouring States i.e. Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Rajasthan and UT Chandigarh. However, the Government of India has created some posts of Assistant Registers in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200, but the GOI pattern is not followed in the State of H.P. 9. In so far as the contention of the applicant regarding pay scale allowed to the posts of Record Keeper and Reader is concerned, the post of Record Keeper exists in both offices i.e. H.P. High Court and erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The post of Record Keeper is equivalent to the post of Senior Assistant and as such scale of pay has rightly been allowed to this post at par with Sr. Assistant. The post of Record Keeper is equivalent to the post of Senior Assistant and as such scale of pay has rightly been allowed to this post at par with Sr. Assistant. In so far as the post of Reader is concerned, no deviation has been made with regard to grant of pay scale and the pay scale has been allowed to the post in Consumer Commission at par with the pay scale allowed to the post in H.P. High Court, H.P. Lokayukta and erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. 10. In view of the above, the undersigned is convinced that the rep resentationist has no claim to demand the equivalence of pay scale at par with the H.P. High Court and the representation of Shri Sita Ram Dhiman being devoid of merit, is hereby rejected." 18. On a plain reading, the reasoning contained in self-contradictory. To be explicit, on the one hand, admittedly, whereas the posts of Record Keeper and Reader in the Commission have been equated for the purpose of higher pay scales with that of the Record Keeper and Reader working in the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, H.P. Lokayukta and erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, equivalence to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Commission at par with the post of Assistant Registrar in the Hon''ble High Court has been denied solely on the ground that the post of Assistant Registrar does not exist in the neighbouring States of Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Rajasthan and U.T. Chandigarh. The reasoning, as already observed, besides being self-contradictory, is also quite fallacious. 19. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, when for the purpose of higher pay scale, posts of Record Keeper and Reader in the Commission have been equated with the co-ordinate posts of Record Keeper and Reader in the Hon''ble High Court, denial of equivalence to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Commission for the purpose of higher pay scale at par with that of Assistant Registrar in the Hon''ble High Court on the ground that the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15-100 claimed by the applicant is admissible to the higher post of Registrar in Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, does not deserve any consideration. 20. The above discussion brings us to hold that the denial of pay scale of Rs. 10025-15-100 claimed by the applicant is admissible to the higher post of Registrar in Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, does not deserve any consideration. 20. The above discussion brings us to hold that the denial of pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100+Rs.800/- as special allowance to the applicant as Assistant Registrar at par with the co-ordinate post of Assistant Registrar in the Hon''ble High Court amounts to discrimination and thus impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution, entitling the applicant for the relief claimed. 21. The transferred application is accordingly allowed with a direction to the respondents/competent authority(s) to grant the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100+RS.800/- as special allowance to the applicant on and with effect from his appointment on promotion as Assistant Registrar, vide notification dated 22nd February, 2000, Annexure P-3, along with all consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the said authority(s) by the applicant, who, as already noticed, stands already retired way back on 31.08.2004. 22. The transferred application as also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.