Agung Lapung, S/o. Lt. Taruk Lapung v. State Of A. P. , Represented By The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of A. P. , Itanagar
2022-08-24
A.M.BUJOR BARUA
body2022
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioners herein are Superintendents and Administrative Officers working under the various directorates under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and they were all promoted to their respective posts after working as lower divisions clerks or upper division clerks, as the case may be. By an order dated 14.01.1998 of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, an upgraded scale of pay was made admissible to the Superintendents, Assistants and Upper Division Clerks in the Secretariat Administration Department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners who are serving in similar capacities but in other departments had raised their grievance claiming parity in pay and accordingly, by an Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002 of the Secretary (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh,it was provided that each head of offices shall arrange to draw and disburse the pay and allowances as admissible to the staff members serving under their control of respective head of offices at the enhanced rate w.e.f. 14.01.2002 without delay. But in spite of such decision of the Finance Department contained in the O.M. dated 28.08.2002, the petitioners and other similarly situated employees were not paid the enhanced pay to bring them at par with the similar employees of the Secretariat Administration Department. Subsequently, the 6th Pay Commission which had given its report in the year 2008 and adopted in the year 2009, retained the disparity between the scale of pay in respect of the employees under the Secretariat Administration Department and those of other departments like that of the petitioners. 3. In the circumstance, this writ petition is instituted claiming for a direction for parity in pay between the petitioner employees and those similar employees in the Secretariat Administration Department. The materials available on record do not make it discernible as to why the authorities in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh seeks to retain the disparity in the scale of pay between the employees in the Secretariat Administration Department and like that of the petitioners.
The materials available on record do not make it discernible as to why the authorities in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh seeks to retain the disparity in the scale of pay between the employees in the Secretariat Administration Department and like that of the petitioners. In the absence of such materials to indicate the reason, it would be inappropriate for this Court to go into the question as to what should be the scale of pay payable to the employees like that of the petitioners that is whether it should be at parity with those of the Secretariat Administration Department or the disparity should remain. 4. In this circumstance, we are of the view that the matter requires an examination by the High Level Standing Committee on pay anomalies headed by the Chief Secretary as to whether the employees like that of the petitioners who are working in departments/directorates other than the Secretariat Administration Department, are entitled to the same scale of pay as that of the employees of the Secretariat Administration Department or there are overwhelming good and acceptable reasons to retain the disparity in the scale of pay. The High Level Standing Committee shall give a consideration to the aforesaid aspect and take a final decision within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and whatever decision is taken be communicated to the petitioners. In doing so, the High Level Standing Committee shall also take note of that otherwise there does not appear to be any difference in the nature of work performed by the employees of other departments and that of the Secretariat Administration Department unless the High Level Standing Committee is of the view that some tangible, acceptable and reasonable difference do exist. Writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.