CWP NO. 15246 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO. 15246 OF 2010 DECIDED ON- 17.01.2011 Ranjit Kumar etc. ……PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana etc. ……RESPONDENTS Coram HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J(Oral) The petitioners by virtue of the instant petition seek to highlight their grievance that their pay scales vis a vis the persons who are working two steps lower to them are not favourable to them. Even though they are higher in hierarchy, they are getting lesser pay than the ones who are lower in rank to them. The petitioners are working as Farm Assistants. The extract of the rules which appears in the written statement filed by the respondents shows that the posts of Fisherman cum Watchman are the posts which are two steps lower than the Farm Assistants and that the post of Field Assistants group D being inter mediatory between the Fisherman and the Farm Assistants. A comparative analysis of the pay scales as admissible to the petitioners and the Fisherman cum Watchman group D is also reflected in the written statement and is as follows:- Date of revision of pay scale Farm Assistant Group C Fisherman cum Watchman Group D 01/04/79 350-500 300-430 01/01/86 775-1025 750-940 01/01/96 2610-3540 2550-3200 01/01/06 4440-7440+1400GP 4440-7440+1300GP CWP NO. 15246 OF 2010 2 The grievance of the petitioners, therefore, is that since 1.1.2006, the petitioner's pay is 4440-7440 + 1400GP while the Fisherman Cum Watchman group D who were two steps lower to the petitioners is having the pay scale of 4440-7440 + 1300GP and besides they are getting Rs.240/- as washing allowance and Rs.100/- as cycle allowance which cumulatively on calculation comes to Rs.6580/- as against the total carry home salary of the petitioners which is Rs.6340/-. It is, thus, contended that there is acute anomaly in the pay scales of the Fisherman cum Watchman and the Farm Assistants, the posts against which the petitioners are working. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a Division Bench of this Court reported as 1995(1) SLR page 215 Sunder Lal Jain and others v. State of Haryana and others wherein this Court has observed as follows:- “It is totally unreasonable to place a junior post and higher post in the same pay scale. A Division Bench of this Court in Har Kishan and another v. State of Punjab and another 1987(5) SLR 539 held that “where a lower post is equated with regard to pay scale with the promotional post, it was a clear anomaly and was highly irrational”. Another Division Bench of this Court in P.L.Goyl v. State of Haryana and ors. 1990(5)SLR 108 held that “reducing the pay scale on promotion would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In Civil Writ Petition No. 10534 of 1991 ( Mani Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others) decided by me on September 20,1993, it was held that “it was legitimate aspiration of every citizen to be better placed, both, in status and pay on promotion and if this is to be frustrated, it will obviously damper the growth of the man which is an natural desire of everyone”. If there is no increase in the emoluments of the citizen on his promotion, no one would ever work with zeal and dedication nor would be ever like to acquire better experience and more qualifications. This would result into complete CWP NO. 15246 OF 2010 3 stagnation. The action of the respondents in equating the promotional posts with that of inferior posts in the matter of pay scale would obviously result in restricting the natural aspiration of human being to go higher and higher in his service graph and would, thus, be wholly arbitrary. A direction is, thus, issued to forthwith fix the pay of the petitioners in the scale immediately higher then the one they were getting on a lower posts from which they were promoted. This Court is of the considered view that the authorities responsible for fixing the pay scales of petitioners should immediately get down and see through that the justice is done to the petitioners by fixing them in a pay scale commensurate to their nature of duties and post. This exercise must be done within six months from today. However, petitioners be paid forthwith all the arrears that might be due to them by fixing them in a pay scale immediately higher to that they were getting on the post from which they were promoted. This petition deserves to be allowed with costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-”. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent . He refers to the written statement to contend that the comparative analysis of the pay scales ever since 1.4.1979 till 1.1.2006 reveals that the petitioners are in higher grade and thus, the grievance of the petitioners is said to be mis founded. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on 1997(3) SCT 649 Union of India v. P.V.Hariharan wherein in para 5 of the judgment, it has been observed as under:- “Before parting with this appeal, we feel impelled to make a few observations. Over the past few weeks, we have come across several matters decided by Administrative Tribunals on the question of pay scales. We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not CWP NO. 15246 OF 2010 4 their function. It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realise that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is also being mis-understood and mis-applied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise due restraint in the matter. Unless a clear case of hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no justification for interfering with the fixation of pay scales. We have come across orders passed by single members and that too quite often Administrative Members, allowing such claims. These orders have a serious impact on the public exchequer too. It would be in the fitness of things if all matters relating to pay scales, i.e, matters asking for a higher pay scale or an enhanced pay scale, as the case may be, on one or the other ground, are heard by a Bench comprising at least one Judicial Member. The Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Chairmen of the State Administrative Tribunals shall consider issuing appropriate instructions in the matter.” It is, thus, contended that the revision of pay scales is a job undertaken by the Pay Commission, which bases its findings on various inputs that may be placed before it. The Courts which are deprived of such inputs normally should not interfere in the structure of pay so determined by the Government or the Pay Commission. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. CWP NO. 15246 OF 2010 5 There is no doubt that a person who seeks promotion also seeks betterment of pay and benefits that may accrue on such a promotion, otherwise the promotion becomes a hollow and empty concept. It is also not disputed that the Fisherman-cum-Watchman is a post which is two steps lower to the posts held by the petitioners, and the post of Field Assistant is a inter mediatory to which post of Fisherman-cum-Watchman can be promoted after he fulfills the requisite conditions prescribed in the rules and likewise, a Field Assistant can become a Farm Assistant on the basis of the qualifications and eligibility conditions prescribed under the rules. A particular service may entail certain additional benefits which a person when promoted may not be entitled to, as it may be contingent upon the nature of the job which is being performed, for example, a person who is required to go to the field in connection with his duties, may require certain level of mobility and may also require some incentive to carry out the duties in the field and the employer is, thus, well within his rights to provide such an additional benefit(s) to an employee. The person so promoted cannot make a grievance of such allowance and say that since a person lower in rank to him has been granted the benefits, such as cycle allowance and washing allowance, it has affected his pay vis a vis such employee and that he is prejudiced. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is seemingly mis placed. However, at the same time, it is noticed with concern that the pay scale after revision is equated with the post of the Fisherman and this does not justify the anomaly from any angle. Both are carrying the pay of 4440-7440, and thus a person is promoted from Fisherman Field Assistant and later as Farm Assistant is likely to be prejudicially affected CWP NO. 15246 OF 2010 6 For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to refer the matter back to the respondent for re-examining the controversy in view of the observations made by this Court and rectify the anomaly existing in the pay scale of the petitioners and the Fisherman cum Watchman. The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 17.01.2011 ( MAHESH GROVER) mamta JUDGE