IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.2007 /2008 Reserved on: 10.4.2009 Decided on:11.5.2009 R.S. Thakur. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr.D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Statistical Officer in the Education Department on the basis of the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission in the year 1972. The post of Statistical Officer was upgraded to the post of Deputy Director (Statistics) in the Directorate of Education vide notification dated 5.6.1987. The petitioner was appointed against the upgraded post. The State vide notification dated 25.3.1989 revised the pay scales in seven Departments, including Education Department (Annexure A-5). The pay scale of Deputy 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 Director (Schools) was revised from Rs. 1200-1850 to Rs. 2850-4375. The pay scale of Deputy Director (Statistics) was revised from Rs. 1200-1850 to Rs. 2400-4000. The petitioner made a detailed representation to the Financial Commissioner (Finance) seeking parity of pay scale with other Deputy Directors. His representation was rejected by the State on 19.9.1991. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the pay scale of upgraded post of Deputy Director (Statistics) was Rs. 1200-1850 and the pay scale of Deputy Director (Schools) was also Rs. 1200-1850. His further contention is that the pay scale of the Deputy Directors was revised from Rs. 1200-1850 to Rs. 2850-4375. However, the pay scale of Deputy Director (Statistics) was revised to Rs. 2400-4000 in most arbitrary and illegal manner. He lastly contended that post of Deputy Director (Statistics) and the post of Deputy Director (Schools) are of equal status post and his client is also entitled to pay scale of Rs. 2850-4375 instead of Rs. 2400-4000. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner cannot seek parity with Deputy Directors who according to him are classified and known as School and Inspection cadre. He then contended that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Deputy Directors are different vis-à-vis Deputy Director (Statistic). He has also supported Annexure A-9 whereby the representation made by the petitioner was rejected. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The State Government has taken a conscious decision to upgrade the post of Statistical Officer to the post of Deputy Director (Statistics) in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1850. The petitioner was appointed against the 3 upgraded post of Deputy Director (Statistics). The other Deputy Directors serving in the Education Department, including the Deputy Director (Zones), Deputy Director (Adult Education), Deputy Director (Primary Education), Deputy Director (Vocational), Deputy Director (Physical Education) and Deputy Director (Statistics) were also placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1850. The very fact that the Deputy Directors were clubbed and granted the uniform pay scale of Rs. 1200-1850 suggests that the posts were of equal status. However, vide notification dated 23.3.1989, the petitioner has been granted the pay scale of Rs. 2400-4000 instead of Rs. 2850-4375. The respondent-State has not placed on record the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for filling up the post of Deputy Director (Education). Rather the respondent-State has failed to place any tangible evidence on record to establish that expression “school” was ever used with the post of Deputy Director either when the post was created or the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were framed. It appears that the expression “school” has been used for the first time only at the time of issuance of Annexure A-5. The case of the petitioner is also strengthened on the basis of the documents placed by him whereby the Deputy Director (Survey, Data Collection and Data Processing) in the State of Punjab has been granted the pay scale of Rs. 2850-4375. This post is corresponding to the post of Deputy Director (Statistics). The job of the Deputy Director (Statistics) is to survey, collect data and to process the same. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the pay scale of Rs. 2850-4375 only on a very flimsy ground that the nomenclature of the post of Deputy Director in the State of Punjab instead of being Deputy Director (Statistics) is Deputy Director (Survey, Data Collection and Data Processing). The respondent- State has construed the nomenclature very very narrowly instead of viewing the same broadly to redress the grievance of the petitioner. The 4 respondent has also over looked Annexure A-4 on the basis of which the posts were created/upgraded. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected without a speaking order. It is settled law by now that the order which has civil or evil consequences must be self-contained and reasoned order. The respondents have not justified in what manner the cadre of Deputy Director (Statistics) is different from the cadre of Deputy Director (Education). If it is presumed hypothetically that the cadre is separate it cannot be the sole ground to deny the same pay scale i.e. Rs. 2850-4375 to the petitioner who is also holding the post of Deputy Director (Statistics). The respondent-State itself has maintained the parity of the pay scale of the petitioner with the Deputy Director (Education). The fact that the petitioner has been placed in the same pay scale depicts that the duties being discharged by him are same and similar vis-à-vis the Deputy Director (Education). The petitioner could not be discriminated against by the respondent-State at the time of revision of pay scales. It is true that it is the job of the experts to grant/revise the pay scales. However, their decision cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa and others versus State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 9 SCC 406 have held as under: “13. He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822 and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra(2004) 2 SCC 150 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 5 363. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822 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 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.” Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-9 dated 19.9.1991 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 2850-4375 to the petitioner from the due date. No costs. 11.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*