Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1048 (PNJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

2024-07-12

AMAN CHAUDHARY

body2024
JUDGMENT Aman Chaudhary, J. The petitioners are before this Court for the removal of anomalies in their pay scale from the date it arose, i.e. 01.01.2006, instead of 01.01.2016. 2. Learned Senior counsel contended that the petitioners, appointed as Lab Technicians in the Health Department, Haryana, were granted the same pay scale as that of Radiographers, which continued to be the case until 2009, when that of the latter was made higher. The Pay Anomalies Commission (hereafter referred to as 'Commission') constituted to address the concerns regarding it, on 24.07.2015 recommended the same pay band to both categories. The Government upgraded the pay scale, though, w.e.f. 01.01.2016, without there being any justification for the anomaly not being removed from the date it began. 3. Opposing the above, learned State counsel submitted that it is the inherent power of the State Government to determine the scale of a post, which is done based on various criteria. Though incidentally the pay scales were identical prior to 01.01.2006, but the same were revised by the 6th Pay Commission thereon. However, after receiving the proposal of the Department and representation of the petitioners, a decision was taken to upgrade the pay scale of Lab Technicians equal to that of Radiographers. It is not a matter of anomaly, in which case benefit could have been granted retrospectively, but revision of pay scale and thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 5. It would be apposite to refer to the recommendations of the Commission, relevant paras whereof read thus: "The category of Radiographers got the benefit of pay revision twice, once when during pay revision they were given a G.P. of Rs. 3200/- as against the normal revision to Rs. 2800/- and subsequently to Rs. 3600/- as was done in all categories. The categories of LT(G) got left out of both these revisions. It has been argued that the justification of exposure to risk given as the reason for improvement in grade given in the case of Radiographer applies in equal measure to the category of LT(G). Whose quantum of work in a day is much more compared to that of Radiographer. The categories of LT(G) got left out of both these revisions. It has been argued that the justification of exposure to risk given as the reason for improvement in grade given in the case of Radiographer applies in equal measure to the category of LT(G). Whose quantum of work in a day is much more compared to that of Radiographer. The LT (G) apart from analyzing so many blood samples in a day also prepares the reports based on which the diagnosis of the problem of the patient is made and also the treatment to be given. Thus in terms of duties performed and exposure to risk there is a sound argument for treating LT (G) at par with the Radiographer. The Commission, therefore, accepting the argument of parity recommends the same pay band with grade pay of Rs. 3600/- to the category of LT (G)." 6. The grouse of the petitioners was that the rectification must relate back to the day when the anomaly occurred. 7. The Division Bench in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2003 (5) SLR 334, had dealt with the issue as involved in the present case, relevant paras whereof read thus: "16. After having given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments, we find that the present petition deserves to succeed. The detailed facts have been noticed by us above. The various averments made in the petition with regard to the similarity of pay scales between the Statistical Officers of the Transport Department and the ESA department and the removal of the anomaly in the year 1970 have not been denied by the respondents in the written statement. Rather in reply to the aforesaid averments in para 4 of the written statement, it is stated that "para 4 of the petition is further admitted being a matter of record." xx xx xx 19. In the case of Dr. Rather in reply to the aforesaid averments in para 4 of the written statement, it is stated that "para 4 of the petition is further admitted being a matter of record." xx xx xx 19. In the case of Dr. Sukhdev Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and others, 1991(2) SCT 209 (P&H), a Single Bench of this Court had also held that once the pay scales of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were equated to the pay scales of PCMS Class II doctors and this had been done on the representation of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons then when subsequently the pay scales of the PCMS Class II doctors were revised then there could be no discrimination in the pay scales of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, who were also entitled to the similar revision of their pay scales as well. 20. Again in the case of Haryana State Biologists Association v. The State of Haryana and others, 1994(3) SCT 198 (P&H)(DB), a Division Bench of this Court had observed as follows : "After going through the pleadings of the parties and various judgments cited on their behalf, we find that once a parity in the pay scale of the employees in two categories is granted, the same cannot be withdrawn and the parity disturbed. Once the State is shown to have made a conscious decision of providing parity in the pay scales of employees falling in two different cadres, they cannot be permitted to deprive one class of category by disturbing the parity. Any order passed or action taken which results in deprivation of the parity in the pay scales would be discriminatory being violative of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution requiring interference. " 8. In J.L. Bhutani v. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) SCT 407 the Division Bench of this Court observed that the two posts in question carried the same status, duties and responsibilities, therefore, revision of the pay scale was ordered to be from the date that the anomaly arose. Relevant paras of the same, read thus: "12. From the narration of the facts given in the foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that post of Milk Commissioner in the matter of pay scale was equated throughout with the Director of Animal Husbandry. Post of Milk Commissioner was occupied at a number of occasions by the Director Animal Husbandry. Relevant paras of the same, read thus: "12. From the narration of the facts given in the foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that post of Milk Commissioner in the matter of pay scale was equated throughout with the Director of Animal Husbandry. Post of Milk Commissioner was occupied at a number of occasions by the Director Animal Husbandry. These two posts carried the same status, duties and responsibilities. They were put in the same scale of pay throughout and for the first time with effect from 1.5.1990 Director was given a revised pay scale of Rs. 4800-5700 while the same was not given to the Milk Commissioner. On a representation filed by the petitioner, Milk Commissioner was also given the same scale of pay but from 1.4.1994. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether there is any inherent power in the Government to grant revised scales of pay to different categories of employees from different dates specially when two posts were equated throughout and carried the same status, duties and responsibilities. If it does so, would it be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 13. Article 14 of the Constitution provides equality of treatment to the similarly situated persons. Similarly Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality in the public appointments. Under these two articles two set of employees can be treated differently on the basis of reasonable classification based on objective and discernible data. It is possible for the Government to classify the employees on the basis of nature of duties, extent of responsibilities and qualifications etc. These factors can be taken into consideration while determining the revision of pay . Government can give a higher scale of pay to the persons discharging the duties on a post which carries higher responsibility/onerous duties but where all persons are similarly situated, it would not be permissible to the Government to treat the employees differently in the matter of revision of pay scales. In the present case, as has been stated earlier, the status, nature of duties and responsibilities of the post of Milk Commissioner and Director Animal Husbandry are the same. These were inter-transferable posts and had been put in the same scale of pay through out. In the present case, as has been stated earlier, the status, nature of duties and responsibilities of the post of Milk Commissioner and Director Animal Husbandry are the same. These were inter-transferable posts and had been put in the same scale of pay through out. Case put forth by the respondent that the Government has inherent administrative powers to grant the pay scales from any date cannot be accepted in such a situation. State cannot arbitrarily fix different dates of scales of pay for different employees who are similarly situated. If it is done, the same would be arbitrary and unfair. Different treatment cannot be given to different employees who are situated similarly in any sphere including the revision of scales of pay or the date from which the pay scales are revised. We are fortified in the view taken by us from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1995(1) RSJ 838 : 1995(1) SCT 307 in which while answering similar questions their Lordships concluded that the State Govt, cannot differentiate between different categories of employees situated similarly in the revision of pay scales from different dates. 14. Similar was the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Om Parkash Malik and others v. The State of Haryana, 1991(4) SLR 751 : 1991(3) SCT 630 (P&H). 15. Counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.K. Bishnoi and others v. State of Haryana, 1993(3) RSJ 444 : 1993(4) SCT 127. to contend that equivalence of posts or equivalence of pay scales must be left to the Executive Government's expert bodies like Pay Commissions and the courts should not normally interfere with the findings of such bodies unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration. 16. We do not find any substance in this submission. Facts of S.K. Bishnoi's case (supra) and the present case are different. While dealing with a similar objection in Ajmer Singh's case (supra), it was observed by the Division Bench as under :- "On behalf of the respondents, reference has been made to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S.K. Bishnoi and others v. State of Haryana, 1993(3) RSJ 444 : 1993(4) SCT 127 (P&H). The Division Bench decided a bunch of writ petitions. The Division Bench decided a bunch of writ petitions. The petitioners therein "sought a mandate to the respondent-State to remove the anomalies in their pay scales with effect from January 1, 1986 instead of May 1, 1990 as ordered by it." The Division Bench found that "the respondent allowed them (petitioners in these cases) the higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 keeping in view the nature of duties performed by them." The court had found that there was a 'further revision' of pay scales and not the removal of any anomalies. Consequently, petitions were dismissed. The factual and legal controversy in the present case is totally different. Consequently, the respondents can derive no advantage from this decision." In this case as well it is also held that factual and legal controversy involved is totally different from that in S.K. Bishnoi's case (supra). Consequently, respondents cannot derive any advantage from this decision. It is worth noticing that with effect from 1.4.1992, a situation had arisen when the lowest post of Veterinary Surgeon was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4100-5300 while the petitioner who was Head of the Department, was in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and the Government itself realised anomaly in the existing scale . Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Dairy Development noticing the anomaly recommended that the pay scale of Milk Commissioner be revised forthwith. Copy of this recommendation is Annexure P16. The anomaly was removed but from a date which was four years later in time. As it was an anomaly on the face of it, the Government should have removed the anomaly from the date the same had arisen. There was no justification in not granting the scale of Rs. 4800-5700 with effect from 1.5.1990 i.e. the date from which the same was given to Director of Animal Husbandry. 9. In Shyam Sunder v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula, 1998 (1) SCT 543 the Division Bench elucidated that, "Once the claim of pay parity has been granted to the petitioners, there is no reason to assign different date for its effect. The revised pay scale should be given from the same date as in the case of other categories of employees...". The SLP against the said judgment came to be dismissed on 09.02.1998. 10. The revised pay scale should be given from the same date as in the case of other categories of employees...". The SLP against the said judgment came to be dismissed on 09.02.1998. 10. That the pay scale wherein the anomaly had arisen was released from 01.01.2006, it is bound to be corrected from the said date and not with effect from the date when it was discovered, or prospectively with effect from a date of the choice of the employer. Once a mistake is acknowledged to have been committed, whereby an anomaly has arisen, it has to be remedied in such a manner, that the aggrieved does not have any adverse effect of the same, which is its correction retrospectively. 11. It is evident that parity between the pay scales of Radiographers and Lab Technicians was maintained throughout, from 1976 right up-til 2009, when the former were granted a scale higher than the latter. The Commission, constituted to look into the grievances stemming out from this action, accepted the plea of the employees while taking into consideration the duties and responsibilities of both posts and recommended the same pay band for them. The State, without listing any cogent reasons, imposed a cut off date of 2016 for grant of the due instead of 2006. It is thus iniquitous and unacceptable in law as the same does not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which postulates equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. 12. On an analysis of the factual matrix, in light of the afore-referred judgments, the respondents were required to revise the pay scale of the petitioners from 01.01.2006, when the anomaly arose and grant them consequential benefits flowing therefrom. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.