Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 251 (HP)

Diwan Singh Negi v. State of H. P.

2025-03-03

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant petition has been filed for following substantive relief: “i) That the respondents may be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.5800-9200 to the applicants category, which scale has also been granted to the category of Family Planing Social workers (now known as Health Educators), who were also initially in the same pay scale of Rs.120-250, which was being granted to the applicants.” 2. The petitioners were appointed in the Department of Health and Family Welfare as Projector Operators (Cinema Operators). Petitioner No.5 was appointed on 07.09.1977, petitioners No.1 and 3 were appointed on 26.02.1981 and petitioners No.2 and 4 were appointed on 23.11.1989. At the time of appointment, the petitioners were allowed pay scale of Rs.400-660. 3. After the pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the pay scale of the petitioners was revised to Rs.3120-6200. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that various other categories in the same department i.e. Sanitary Inspectors, Health Assistants, Family Planning Inspector, Surveillance Inspector, Malaria Inspector and Superintendent Vaccination were re-designated as Male Health Supervisors in the year 1983. Further, the Male and Female Health Workers in the respondent- department (subsequently redesignated as Family Planning Social Workers), who were drawing pay scale of Rs.400-600, were allowed higher pay scale of Rs.510-940 in the year 1983 and further enhanced from Rs.510-940 to Rs.680-1120 in the year 1986. 5. As per petitioners, the pay scale of Family Planning Social Workers was revised to Rs.5800-9200 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, whereas the petitioners, who at one point of time, were also drawing the pay scale at par with the Family Planning Social Workers, were allowed the revision of pay scale of Rs.3120-6200. 6. The petitioners have alleged discrimination at the hands of the respondents in the grant of pay scales. The case of the petitioners is that when at one point of time the category of Projector Operators (Cinema Operators) was granted pay scale at par with the Family Planning Social Workers, the action of the respondents in discriminating the petitioners vis a vis Family Planning Social Workers in the matter of grant of pay revisions is without any justification. 7. The petitioners have further alleged that they submitted a representation dated 23.01.1999 to respondent No.1. 7. The petitioners have further alleged that they submitted a representation dated 23.01.1999 to respondent No.1. The representation of the petitioners was forwarded to the anomalies committee of 4 th Punjab Pay Commission, but no decision was taken on the representation of the petitioners, forcing them to approach the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2000 by way of instant petition. 8. In addition, the petitioners have further alleged that the Cinema Operators in the Department of Public Relations, Government of Himachal Pradesh, who are engaged for the identical job, have also been allowed higher pay scale than that of the petitioners. 9. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners on the grounds firstly, that the category of Projector Operators (Cinema Operators) in the Department of Health and Family Welfare is entirely different than the category of Family Planning Social Workers, as the job of Family Planning Social Workers is of technical nature and they are required to have diploma in Public Health, secondly, it has been asserted that the Government of Himachal Pradesh follows the Punjab pattern of pay scales and the category of petitioners has been granted the same pay scale which has been granted to their counter parts in Punjab and lastly, the comparison sought by the petitioners with the Cinema Operators in Public Relations Department has also been rebutted by contesting that the nature of job in both the Departments has distinguishing features. 10. The petitioners have filed the rejoinder and have reiterated their stand taken in the petition. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 12. The scope of judicial review in the matters concerning grant of pay scales, its revision and related issues is well defined. The Court should interfere only when the administrative action is palpably unreasonable, unjustified and prejudicial to a section of employees. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal and Others , (2008) 7 SCC 375 , wherein it has been held as under:- “21. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal and Others , (2008) 7 SCC 375 , wherein it has been held as under:- “21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.” 13. Similarly, in Shiba Kumar Dutta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others , (1997) 3 SCC 545 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice adopted for invidious discrimination and denial of equal treatment by the employers to its employees. 14. Equally settled is the proposition that the decision as to fixation of pay and its revision vis-a-vis various categories of its employees is exclusive domain of the government. These are the matters to be decided by the experts and it is not for the Court to substitute its own opinion. Similarly, in the cases of parity in pay scales on the basis of nature of duties and responsibilities, it has been repeatedly held that the expert job cannot be undertaken by the Court and in case of any challenge being made on the ground of disparity the burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and nature of duties as also responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. 15. In Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and Others , (2019) 3 SCC 547 , it has been held as under: - 21. 15. In Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and Others , (2019) 3 SCC 547 , it has been held as under: - 21. It is well settled that for considering the equation of posts and the issue of equivalence of posts, the following factors had been held to be determinative:- (i) The nature and duties of a post; (ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v. P.K. Roy and Others. 23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. The person claiming parity must produce material before the court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and that they are entitled to parity of pay scales. After referring to number of judgments and observing that it is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay to prove and establish that he had been discriminated against. this Court, in SAIL, held as under:- “22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he had been discriminated against, as the question of parity has to be decided on consideration of various facts and statutory rules, etc. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. The court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right. (Vide U.P. State Sugar Corpn. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right. (Vide U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Sant Raj Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 82 , Union of India and Another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008) 1 SCC 368 , Union of India v. Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586 , Union of India and Others v. Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630 , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 , U.P. SEB and Another v. Aziz Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606 and State of M.P. and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635 )”. 31. Though the above arguments of the respondents appear to be attractive, when considered in the light of the well settled principles, we find no merit in the contention. Equation of posts and revision of pay scale is within the domain of the Government. The matter should be left to the discretion and expertise of the Pay Committee and the Government to take the decision on the scale of pay/revision of pay scale by considering the nature of duties and responsibilities. As pointed out earlier, the Pay Anomaly Committee has given elaborate reasons for revising the pay scales of the Head Clerks at Rs.2000-3500 and Internal Auditors at Rs.1800-3200. The conclusion arrived at by the experts/Pay Anomaly Committee are not susceptible to judicial review and the courts are not to interfere with the decision of the Government which is based on the opinion of the experts.” 16. In Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Thana Singh and Others , (2019) 4 SCC 113 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is for the employer to classify its employees/posts on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned and to prescribe different pay scales accordingly. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, would get attracted only if there is discrimination between same set of employees not otherwise. 17. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding LPA No. 445 of 2012, vide its judgment dated 21.11.2016 after placing reliance on State of Punjab and Others Vs. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, would get attracted only if there is discrimination between same set of employees not otherwise. 17. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding LPA No. 445 of 2012, vide its judgment dated 21.11.2016 after placing reliance on State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others , Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013 , decided on 26.10.2016, have observed as under:- “27. However, the aforesaid submissions of the petitioners cannot be accepted in teeth of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh’s case supra, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that ‘onus of proof’ of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay & equal work’, lies on the person who claims it and it is for him to establish that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post. For this purpose, the employees concerned with whom equation as is sought should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal should be of same quality and sensitivity. 28. Further, in determining equality of functions and responsibilities, it would be necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity and qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible. Therefore, the person holding the same rank/designation but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. 29. It has been reiterated in Jagjit Singh case (supra) that parity in pay, under the aforesaid principal of ‘equal pay for equal work’ cannot be claimed merely on the ground, that an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post were placed in the same pay scale. 29. It has been reiterated in Jagjit Singh case (supra) that parity in pay, under the aforesaid principal of ‘equal pay for equal work’ cannot be claimed merely on the ground, that an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post were placed in the same pay scale. The principle ‘equal pay for equal work’ is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbent of the subject post and the reference post discharge similar duties and responsibilities while claiming parity in pay scales under principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ equation in the nature of duties is of paramount importance and there is no comparison between one set of employees in one organization and another set of employees in different organisations, there can be no question of equation of pay scale under this principle.” 18. In view of above exposition of law, the defence raised on behalf of the respondents that they have the prerogative and right to classify various categories of its employees for the purposes of grant of pay scales requires to be upheld. Noticeably, in the fact of the instant petitions, petitioners have not placed on record any quantifiable data to suggest that they have been discriminated without application of requisite parameters. 19. Since, the petitioners have failed to place on record any data justifying their comparison with the category of Family Planning Social Workers or the Cinema Operators in other Departments of State Government, they have not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the representation of the petitioners has remained undecided, the respondents may be directed to take a decision thereon. I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not even entitled to the relief as submitted by learned counsel for the reason that the State has already made its stand clear by denying the claim of the petitioners. The petition has been pending for approximately 25 years and there has not been any change in the stance of the respondents. Further, no such prayer had been made by the petitioners at the initial stage of the case. 21. In result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 22. Further, no such prayer had been made by the petitioners at the initial stage of the case. 21. In result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 22. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.