IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1891 of 2005 Date of Decision: 27.4.2009 Shimbhu Dayal Yadav ....... Appellant through Shri Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and others. ....... Respondents through Shri O.P.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 6.1.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari (hereinafter described as `the First Appellate Court'). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff- appellant joined the government service in the Education Department as S.S. Master with effect from 27.7.1965 on six months basis and then on regular basis with effect from 15.12.1965. He was promoted as Head Master on 29.7.1992 and retired as such on 28.2.1998. All the retiral benefits were released to him, although after five months, except the R.S.A.No.1891 of 2005 -2- .... complete amount of gratuity out of which a sum of Rs.20,000/- was withheld. According to the appellant, he had submitted all the information which was required of him. It was his further case that his juniors, namely, Ram Narain and Dhan Singh were drawing higher pay than him and his representation for bringing him at par with them did not yield any result. He, therefore, filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief. It was pleaded therein that aforementioned persons were promoted as Head Masters with effect from 20.5.1994 and 21.5.1994, whereas he was promoted on 29.7.1992, yet, he was getting less pay. It was further pleaded that prior thereto, Ram Narain and Dhan Singh were also granted higher standard pay scale in accordance with the government instructions application to Group-C employees, whereas he was not extended such benefit as he ceased to be a Group-C employee on being promoted to Group-B w.e.f. 29.7.1992. He, therefore, prayed that his pay may be fixed at par with that of his juniors and the arrears along with the balance amount of gratuity may be directed to be paid to him along with interest. Upon notice, the defendants-respondents appeared and filed written statement contesting the averments made in the suit. It was pleaded that on account of promotion of the appellant in Group-B, he was in different cadre than that of Ram Narain and Dhan Singh and, therefore, he was not entitled to fixation of his pay at par with them. The withholding of amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.20,000/- was justified on the ground that the records pertaining to the period from 29.7.1992 to 28.2.1998 when the appellant worked as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, were not audited R.S.A.No.1891 of 2005 -3- .... as yet and no objection certificate was not received. On the pleadings of the parties, as many as nine issues were framed by the trial Court and after appraisal of the entire evidence on record, it decreed the suit of the appellant in toto. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal which was partly accepted by the First Appellate Court and the appellant was held entitled to Rs.20,000/-, the balance amount of his gratuity, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and his claim with regard to fixation of his pay at par with that of his juniors, which was predominant in the suit and which is alive today as his grievance, was declined. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the juniors of the appellant were placed in the higher pay scale, the action of the respondents was discriminatory and he was certainly entitled to be granted the higher pay ever since his juniors were granted the same. He further contended that the findings of the First Appellate Court are totally contrary to the law of the land as such an action can only be termed to be discriminatory. Reliance was placed a judgment reported as Ishwar Chand Walia Versus State of Haryana and others, 2001(3) R.S.J. 241 (D.B.) wherein this Court, in almost identical circumstances, held that such an action was discriminatory and the respondents could not grant higher pay scale to a junior while denying the same to a senior incumbent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the instructions which were applicable to the members of R.S.A.No.1891 of 2005 -4- .... Group-C service were applied to the cases of Ram Narain and Dhan Singh whose cases had been cited by the appellant and since the action was in conformity in the existing rules & instructions, the same could not be termed to be discriminatory and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the whole record. In my opinion, the following questions of law arise for determination in this appeal:- 1. Whether a junior employee can be granted a higher pay scale than that of his senior? 2. Whether the principle of “equal pay for equal work” envisages the grant of equal pay for employees, who perform similar duties and denial of the same to one and grant of the same to the other is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? The aforementioned questions have been adequately answered by the Division Bench in Ishwar Chand Walia Versus State of Haryana and others (supra), the facts of which are also more or less identical to the facts of the instant case. While relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court, their Lordships of the Division Bench observed as under:- “When the petitioner is drawing less salary than his juniors, then there must have been some cogent reasons. No such cogent reasons are forthcoming. When the petitioner getting less salary than his juniors, necessarily he would be entitled to R.S.A.No.1891 of 2005 -5- .... step up of the salary.” Having regard to the fact that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment in Ishwar Chand Walia's case (supra), it is held that the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of higher pay scale was discriminatory as his juniors were drawing more salary than him, I answer the above questions of law in the affirmative and in his favour. The appeal is accordingly accepted and the findings of the First Appellate Court qua the issue pertaining to the claim of the appellant for fixation of his pay at par with that of his juniors are reversed and the judgment & decree of the trial Court is upheld. The appellant shall also be entitled to consequential benefits, viz., revision of his pension and payment of arrears etc. April 27,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge