IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7364 of 2010. Decided on: 28.6.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Meera Thakur and others. … Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. For respondent No.4. : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed with the following substantive prayers:- (i). That the order dated 8.10.2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to give the revised pay scale of Rs. 3120-5480 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and thereafter Rs. 5910-20200 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to the petitioners with all consequential benefits. 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the following stand vide paras 2 to 4 of preliminary submissions and para 6 on merits:- “Preliminary submissions: 2. That the petitioners had filed earlier O.As. No. 2379/05 and 2555/05 before the then Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal which had been decided by the Hon’ble High Court, H.P. as CWP (T) No. 12225/2008 and CWP (T) No. 12348/2008 titled Smt. Meera Thakur & Ors. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 v/s State of H.P. & Ors. and Smt. Kubja Sharma & ors v/s State of H.P. & ors on 14.7.2010 by directing “the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioners on the analogy of Annexure A-II dated 13.6.1989 to revise the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 to Rs. 3120-5160 with effect from 1.1.1986”. 3. That in view of the Hon’ble Court orders, the case of the petitioners was considered by respondent No.1 and claim of the petitioners for allowing them the revised pay scales had been rejected vide order No. WLF-F (10)- 13/2001-1, dated 8.10.2010 annexed as P-17 in the light of State Govt. Notification No. Fin. (PR) (7)-1/98, dated 21.1.1998 wherein it has been clearly provided that H.P. State Pay Rules, 1998 is only applicable to employees of H.P. Govt. Against these orders the present CWP has been filed by the petitioners. 4. That since the petitioners are employees of the H.P. Child Welfare Council which is a Voluntary Organization under the Indian Council of Child Welfare at Central level and which is getting grant-in-aid from Central Govt. and State Govt. for running different schemes, the revised pay scale of State Govt. employees are not automatically applicable to employees of the Council and being an autonomous organization the council has to decide its affairs, based on its resources and other relevant factors, at own level. Moreover, the issue of allowing revised pay scales to the employees of a voluntary organization is a policy matter on which Govt. has to take a decision and this fact also finds place in Hon’ble High Court order of dated 20.9.2010 in CWP (T) No. 6967/2008 in O.A. 3279/2000 3 titled Jumma Khan & others v/s State of H.P. A copy of the order is annexed as R-1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the present CWP lacking in merit deserves to be dismissed. On merits: 6. That in reply to the contents of para 6 of the CWP, it is submitted that representation of the petitioners has rightly been rejected by respondent No.1 in the light of State Govt. Notification No. Fin. (PR)(7)-1/98, dated 21.1.1998 wherein it has been clearly provided that H.P. State Pay Rules, 1998 is only applicable to employees of H.P. Govt. Since the petitioners are employees of the H.P. Child Welfare Council which is a Voluntary Organization to whom State Govt. is providing grant-in-aid for running some schemes, they are not automatically eligible for grant of revised pay scales at par with State Govt. employees. Moreover, this issue of allowing revised pay scales to the employees of a voluntary organization is a policy matter on which Govt. has to take a decision and this fact has already been appreciated by the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 20.9.2010 in CWP (T) No. 6967/2008 in O.A. No. 3279/2000 titled Jumma Khan & others V/s State of H.P. A copy of the order is annexed as R-1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners claim for allowing them revised pay scales is baseless and without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.” 3. The following averments have been set up on behalf of respondent No.4 in para 2 of preliminary submissions and para 2 on merits:- 4 “Preliminary submissions: 2. That the replying respondent is running various schemes for the welfare of Orphans visually challenged (blind), speech and hearing impaired children in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The replying respondent has no source of income of its own and is totally dependent upon the aid provided by the Govt. of India, State Government of H.P. and Indian Council for Child Welfare, New Delhi. It is clarified that the Govt. of India through Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Delhi, provides 90% grant-in-aid while the balance matching grant to pay the salary/honorarium is being provided by the State Govt. the State Govt. also provides grant-in-aid under other heads of expenditure as per requirement. On merits: 2. That the contents of para 4 and 5 are admitted to the extent that the next revision of pay scale took place with effect from 01.01.1996. It is submitted that the applicants could not have been given the revised pay scale as the replying respondent has not received any sanction from the State Government for affording revised pay scale to the employees including applicants of replying respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that the replying respondent in the absence of sanction from the Govt. and funds for providing revised pay scale is not in a position to give the revised pay scale to its employees including applicants as the replying respondent has no its own independent source of income to meet out the demands/relief of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are working under the State Sponsored Scheme for which 5 100% grant-in-aid is being provided by the State Govt. It is further clarified that the financial resources at the disposal of the replying respondent are extremely meager or negligible and are just enough to run day to day business of the said scheme which includes the pay being provided to the applicants. It is further submitted that the State Govt. has allowed to its employees revised pay scale of 01.01.1996 and the same shall be applicable to the employees of the replying respondent as and when the State Govt. would sanction the said revised pay scales and provide the funds, where after the employees of the replying respondent including the petitioners would be entitled for the same. It is humbly submitted that the replying respondent has already taken the matter with the State Govt. regarding allowing the revised pay scale of 01.01.1996 vide letter No. C-III- 2/III/HPCCW-2254, dated 18.10.2003, the copy of the said letter is annexed herewith as Annexure R4/A. Rest of the contents pertain to Education Department, hence replying respondent need not to reply the same. It is specifically denied that the applicant is not allowed the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme of D.A. in accordance with law, as alleged. It is worthwhile to mention that vide order which the petitioners are being given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme is annexed herewith as Annexure R4/B which clearly show that the petitioners are being given the benefit of ibid scheme. Rest of the contents are wrong, false, misleading and without any base, moreover, 6 the same relate to other respondents, hence calls for no reply. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under judgment dated 26.11.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No. 7148 of 2008, Anil Sharma & others versus State of H.P. and others, text whereof is as under:- “The petitioners are low paid Class-III and Class-IV employees working in the HP Council for Child Welfare of which respondent No.2 is the Chairman and respondents No. 1 and 3 are the funding agency/department. The original application (OA) was filed by the petitioners in the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) on 6.7.2000 which on abolition of the said Tribunal has been transferred to this court and registered as CWP (T) 7148 of 2008. 2. The petition was filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) & (ii) :- “i) To direct the respondents to grant the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with arrears upto date as allowed by the H.P. Govt. to its employees in the same categories; ii) To grant such other relief which may arise out of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.96 in accordance with amendments made by the H.P. Govt. from time to time.” 3. In reply, the following stand has been taken on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3:- “6. (b) Admitted to the extent that Grant-in- aid is being released to the HPCCW for implementing welfare schemes by the State Government. In so far as the 7 question of granting revised pay scale to the employees of H.P. Council for Child Welfare is concerned, the same are to be released by the concerned organization as the State Government has no administrative control over the said institution.” 4. Respondents No.2 and 4 have averred as under vide para 2 of the reply:- “2. That the contents of paras 6 are admitted to the extent of sub paras a + b. It is humbly submitted that Respondent Council is a Voluntary Organization which in its entirety depends upon grant-in-aid-received from Central and State Govt. and Indian Council for Child Welfare, New Delhi for running its various Schemes floated from time to time under Central Govt. Scheme or State Govt. Schemes or Scheme under Indian Council for Child Welfare, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the Applicants are working under a Scheme which is State Sponsored and for which 100% grant for running the said Scheme is provided by State Govt. this being so the financial resources at the disposal of the Respondent/Council are extremely meagre and are just enough to run a day to day business of the said Scheme which includes the pay- being paid to the Applicant. In response to para 6 (d), it is submitted that the State Govt. has already sanctioned pay-scales in 1981 vide 8 letter No. 5-1/76-Bell-II dt. 18.3.81 and HP. CCW-461-91 dt. 4.7.81 for same categories of employees. As per Annexure-R-1. Further pay-scales were also revised on 1.01.86 and were offered to the employees of Respondent Council as per letter No. Fin-IF(C) 4-2/88 dt. 13.6.89 with the condition that the proposed revised pay-scale be adopted after approval of the competent Authority. As per annexed as Annexure R-2. The State Govt. also allowed to Council to revise pay-scale of its employees and the same shall be applicable as and when the State Govt. will sanction the said revise pay scale where after the Applicant and other employees will also be entitled for the same and will get the same. Hence it is submitted that the Council has already taken up the matter regarding revise pay-scales of 1.01.96 with the State Govt. and in this reference the Respondent Council was informed by the Director, Social and Women's Welfare vide letter No. 5-31/98-Bel-Senk-II dt. 6.6.2000 that the matter in question shall be decided at the Government level which has not been so far. Annexed as Annexure-R- 3. The contents of para 6 (f&g) are admitted.” 5. On a bare perusal as also on a combined and harmonious reading of the above stands taken on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 3 on the one hand and respondents No. 2 and 4 on the other, it 9 is apparently a case of an endeavour to shift responsibility to each other. However, in this regard it shall be relevant to make a reference to copy of letter dated 10.3.1981 Annexure R-1 to the reply on behalf of respondents 2 and 4 which is to the following effect:- “Copy of letter No. Kalyan-G(Q)-21/80 dated 10.3.1981 received from Govt. of HP. Sub:- Release of Revised pay-scale to the employees of HP.State Council for Child Welfare. I am directed to refer to this Department letter even No. dated 19.2.1981 and to say that the following revised pay-scales wil be payable to the employees of the HP. State Council for Child Welfare:- 1. Child Welfare Organiser Rs. 800-1400 2. Accounts Assistant Rs. 570-1080 {Designation will be Accountant or Assistant}. 3. Clerk Rs. 300-430 No. 5-1/76-Bel-II Dated-Shimla-2,18-3- 1981. Copy to General Secretary, Indian Council for Child welfare, Shimla-2 for information and necessary action. Sd/- Director Welfare Department Himachal Pradesh.” 6. Thus it is manifest from the above letter Annexure R-1 that even as per respondent No.3 there was a decision of the government to grant revised pay scales to the employees of the HP State Council for Child Welfare. It is also apparent from Annexures R-I, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 that the matter with regard to grant of revised pay scales was considered even in the meeting of Indian Council for Child Welfare, Himachal Pradesh headed by the Governor, Himachal Pradesh and respondents No.3 and 4 with respondent No.1 from 10 time to time. These documents/ communications further go to show that decision to implement the pay scales had in fact been taken and revised pay scales due and admissible on and w.e.f. 1.1.1986 were in fact made applicable, but the subsequent revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.96 has been deferred for the reasons best known to respondents No. 1 and 3. 7. Admittedly the State Government is paying revised pay scales to its employees as per revision of pay scales from time to time, the last being w.e.f. 1.1.2006. It is also not in dispute that revised pay scales applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006 have also been made applicable to the employees of almost all the Statutory Corporations and Commissions in the State. It being so only a minuscule number of employees of a few Councils such as HP Council for Child Welfare cannot be discriminated against in the matter of grant of pay scales in utter disregard and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners and other similarly situate employees of the HP Council for Child Welfare for Grant of revised pay scales applicable from 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006 within six months from today. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, shall ensue the Govt. decision in the light of this judgment.” 5. In view of the above, if on facts the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment dated 26.11.2010 referred to hereinabove in CWP (T) No. 7148 of 2008 and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any 11 discrimination and benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioners before the respondents/competent authority, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them/their authorized representative, if so desired. Consequently, order Annexure P-17, dated 8.10.2010 shall stand quashed. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. June 28, 2011. (cr)