Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 66 (MAN)

Huirem Deben Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-05-05

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to seek a direction on the respondents to fix the pay scale as granted to the Veterinary Field Assistants i.e. Rs.9300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs.4200/- with retrospective effect. 2. Heard Mr. Anjan Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Th. Sukumar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as Veterinary Assistants in the year 1982, 1983 and 1985 respectively along with other incumbents in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, Government of Manipur and after joining, the petitioners have performed their duties with utmost sincerity and dedication with complete satisfaction to all concerned without any adverse remarks. The petitioners along with others were subsequently appointed on promotion vide order dated 6.7.2011 as Veterinary Field Assistants on regular basis in the scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2400/- per month plus other allowances. 4. Further case of the petitioners is that in the year 2018 and 2020, the Director of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry passed orders that the petitioners and other incumbents who have completed 30 years of regular service in their respective grade are accorded for financial upgradation under ACP and MACP Schemes with pay scale of Rs.5200- 20200 with grade pay of Rs.2800/-. After perusal of the said orders, the petitioners found that some of the incumbents, who were promoted as per the same promotion order dated 6.7.2011, were granted MACP-III with scale of Rs.9300-34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/-, whereas the petitioners were paid only the scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2800/-, which is highly discriminatory and arbitrary. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter stating that the petitioners were granted ACP-I and ACP-II while they were serving as Veterinary Assistants. In the case of their juniors, they were granted ACP-II and ACP-III after their promotion to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant. As such, the grade pay of the petitioners has been fixed at Rs.2800/- and that the employees mentioned by the petitioners has been fixed at Rs.4200/- grade pay. In fact, the grade pay of the petitioners at Rs.2800/- has been fixed as per the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 9.10.2015 of the Finance Department. As such, the grade pay of the petitioners has been fixed at Rs.2800/- and that the employees mentioned by the petitioners has been fixed at Rs.4200/- grade pay. In fact, the grade pay of the petitioners at Rs.2800/- has been fixed as per the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 9.10.2015 of the Finance Department. It is stated that the petitioners are enjoying more total emoluments than the juniors. As such the question of arbitrariness, discriminatory and vindictiveness on the part of the respondent State does not arise and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the scale of pay as shown in the orders dated 24.8.2018 and 1.10.2020 to be received by the petitioners under MACP-III are given in the scale of pay of Rs.5200- 20200/- with grade pay of Rs.2800/-. However, the scale of pay which are being given to some other similar incumbents, namely Y.Padma Devi, Md.Dilip Saha and H.Chandramani Singh holding the post of Veterinary Field Assistants and who are also promoted to the said post along with the petitioners, are given at the scale of Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- per month which is much higher than that of the petitioners. 7. Drawing this Court's attention to the order dated 6.7.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the aforesaid persons were also appointed on promotion along with the petitioners to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant and their names were reflected in the promotion order at Serial Nos.26, 27 and 28 respectively and in fact they are junior to the petitioners. Thus, the acts of the respondents in giving higher scale of pay to some selected similarly situated Veterinary Field Assistants and lesser scale to the petitioners who were promoted vide the same promotion order dated 6.7.2011 is illegal and arbitrary. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners were granted ACP-I and AC P-II before their promotion to the post of Veterinary Field Assistants and later on, they have been granted MACP-III after their promotion to the post of Veterinary Field Assistants. However, the juniors, namely, Padma Devi, Md. Dilip Saha and Chandramani Singh were granted ACP-II in the pay band of Rs.5200- 20000+2400 to Rs.5200-20200+2800 under the ACP Rules contained in the Office Memorandum dated 20.7.2005. However, the juniors, namely, Padma Devi, Md. Dilip Saha and Chandramani Singh were granted ACP-II in the pay band of Rs.5200- 20000+2400 to Rs.5200-20200+2800 under the ACP Rules contained in the Office Memorandum dated 20.7.2005. He would submit that thereafter the aforesaid three incumbents have been granted MACP-III vide order dated 1.10.2020 in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800+GP 4200 with effect from March 2019, April 2019 and September, 2019 respectively under the MACP Rules. 9. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that though the grade pay of the petitioners has been fixed at Rs.2800/- as per the MACP Rules, they are enjoying more pay than their juniors. In fact, the petitioners are enjoying their pay of Rs.38,100/- per month as on 1.7.2019 with other admissible allowances, while the juniors draw only Rs.36,500/- per month as their pay with other allowances as on 1.10.2020. Therefore, there is no question of arbitrariness as alleged by the petitioners. 10. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 11. As could be seen from the orders dated 24.8.2018 and 1.10.2020 respectively passed by the Directorate of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, the petitioners along with other incumbents holding the post of Veterinary Field Assistants were granted financial upgradation under ACP and MACP Schemes with pay scale of Rs.5200-20200+GP 2800 and the names of the petitioners 5, 7 and 8 are reflected at Serial Nos.15, 131 and 136 respectively in the order dated 24.8.2018 and similarly the names of the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are reflected in the order dated 1.10.2020 at Serial No.8, 2, 5, 4 and 6 respectively. 12. It is also seen that the scale of pay to be received by the petitioners as shown in the aforesaid two orders under MACP-III are given as Rs.5200-20200+GP 2800. However, the scale of pay which are being given to the other similar incumbents, namely Y.Padma Devi, Md. Dilip Saha and H.Chandramani Singh, whose names are reflected at Serial Nos.15, 16 and 17 respectively in the order dated 1.10.2020 are given at the scale of Rs.9300-34800+GP 4200. 13. In fact, the aforesaid three persons were also appointed on promotion in the same order dated 6.7.2011 by which the petitioners were also promoted to the post of Veterinary Field Assistants. 13. In fact, the aforesaid three persons were also appointed on promotion in the same order dated 6.7.2011 by which the petitioners were also promoted to the post of Veterinary Field Assistants. While so, giving scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800+GP 4200 to the aforesaid persons is higher than the petitioners. 14. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the petitioners were given ACP-I and ACP-II before their promotion to the post of Veterinary Field Assistants and later on they have been granted MACP-III after their promotion to the post of Veterinary Field Assistants is concerned, the same is not acceptable for the reason that when the petitioners and the aforesaid three persons were also appointed on promotion in the same order dated 6.7.2011, the respondents ought to have granted the same scale of pay to the petitioners. The aforesaid three were also subsequently accorded financial upgradation under ACP & MACP Schemes and were placed under MACP-III. Giving one set of individual lower scale and another set of individual to higher scale is arbitrary and this Court cannot endorse the same. 15. The argument of the learned Government Advocate that unless the rules are challenged, the prayer of the petitioners cannot be acceded to, cannot be countenanced, as in support of the said submission, the respondents have not placed any material. On the other hand, the petitioners have proved that they are similarly situated persons as that of the aforesaid three incumbents. 16. The respondents cannot be permitted to discriminate between similarly placed individuals in this behalf between those holding the same post. 17. Thus, this Court is of the view that the acts of the respondents in giving higher scale of pay to some selected similarly situated Veterinary Field Assistants and lesser scale of pay to the petitioners, who were promoted vide the same promotion is illegal, unlawful and arbitrary and that the respondents deprived the petitioners of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the acts of the respondents are also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the Court, this Court is of the view that the claim made by the petitioners is bona fide and also merits consideration. 19. Accordingly, (a) the writ petition is allowed. Furthermore, the acts of the respondents are also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the Court, this Court is of the view that the claim made by the petitioners is bona fide and also merits consideration. 19. Accordingly, (a) the writ petition is allowed. (b) the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and rectify the scale of pay/band of the petitioners as Veterinary Field Assistants which is Rs.9300-34800+GP 4200 as received by the other similarly situated incumbents. (c) The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (d) No costs.