LPA No. 513 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 513 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 11, 2011 Rakesh Kalia and others …Appellants Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Tarundeep S. Khaira, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2. Mr. Damandhir, Advocate for Mr. Anmol Rattan Singh for respondents No. 3 & 4. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 14.09.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that once their pay scale have been granted on the recommendations of the Shetty Commission then there is no room to disturb those recommendations because Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the order dated 07.10.2009 (P-6) has accepted the recommendations of the LPA No. 513 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Shetty Pay Commission and has issued direction for its implementation by the High Court as also the State. It has been categorically held that the date of commencement of the revision in pay has to be w.e.f. 01.04.2003. It is appropriate to mention that the pay scale of stenographer in comparison with the general line cadre after the Shetty Commission's recommendations were as under: “After the Shetty Commission's Recommendation Stenography line/ cadre Clerical Judgment writer (Sr. Grade) to Distt. & Sessions Judge/ ADJs Rs. 6400-10640 (Only one increment) Reader to Distt. & Sessions Judge/ ADJs (Now designated as Reader Grade-I) Rs. 7220-11660 (wrongly considering their earlier pay as Rs. 6400-10640) Judge Writer (Jr. Grade to Civil Judge (Sr. Division)/ CJM/ Civil Judge (J.D.) Rs. 5800-9200 (Only one increment) Reader to Civil Judge (Sr. Division)/ CJM (Now designated as Reader Grade-II Reader to Civil Judge (Jr. Division) (Now designated as Grade-III) Rs. 6400-10640 (newly designated post) Rs. 5800-9200 (newly designated post) Sr. Scale Stenographer attached to DSJ/ ADJ Rs. 5800-9200 (Only one increment) -------- --------- Steno-typist attached to Civil Judge (S.D./ J.D.) Rs. 4400-7000 All graduate Clerks Rs. 5800-8100 2. The learned Single Judge rejected the argument that the Shetty Commission has discriminated between the stenographer in comparison with the general line cadre in the matters of granting revised pay scale. The view of the learned Single Judge in the last LPA No. 513 of 2011 (O&M) -3- two concluding paras reads as under: “It is admitted case of the petitioners that the pay scales now being granted and referred to in detail here-in-above were granted on the recommendation of the Shetty Commission. The petitioners ' claim to have approached the Supreme Court, but their applications have not been considered. The petitioners rely upon the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme court contained in the order dated 7.10.2009 to plead that this court can interfere even to set aside the recommendation of the Shetty Commission. I am not in agreement with the contention raised by the petitioners. From the directions contained in the order dated 7.10.2009, it is abundantly clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission and issued directions for its implementation by the High Court as also the States. Liberty granted to the parties to approach the States/ High Courts is only with regard to the implementation of the Shetty Commission recommendations and not otherwise. Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission on the judicial side and directed the States and High Courts to ensure implementation thereof, it is impermissible for this Court to entertain a challenge to the Shetty Commission report, that too at this belated stage. LPA No. 513 of 2011 (O&M) -4- There is additional reason not to interfere in the matter. It is settled principle of law that to fix the pay scales is the job of expert bodies like Pay Commissions etc. It is not for this Court to venture into this area.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and are of the view that in the order dated 15.07.2008 Hon'ble the Supreme Court had accepted the Shetty Commission's recommendation and issued directions which are as under: “(i) the recommendations are reasonable and do not involve any financial burden. (ii) the decision to implement the recommendations by all States should be taken within a period of three months. (iii) the recommendations will be implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2003.” 4. Hon'ble the Supreme Court also observed that in some of the States/ UTs' recommendations made by the Shetty Commission had not fully implemented and some of them have given effect to the recommendations from a date later than 01.04.2003 contrary to the recommendation of Shetty Commission. Accordingly the following directions were issued: “(i) The High Courts on judicial/ administrative side, will ensure implementation of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission within a reasonable period of one year. The High Court shall permit writ petitions or applications that may be filed by the individual or staff association representing the various members of LPA No. 513 of 2011 (O&M) -5- the staff. (ii) The High Court shall also see that the recommendations are implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2003. (iii) There shall be benefit of one advance increment on the existing pay scale instead of initial pay scale. In many of the States, the same benefit has not been given to the members of the staff, the High Court should also see that these recommendations are implemented. (iv) In some of the States based on various other pay commissions reports, benefits had been given to the members of the staff, these benefits, if any, given shall be in addition to the recommendations given by the Shetty Commission. In any case, if the members of the staff Association/ Subordinate staff getting higher benefits under any of the recommendations of the pay Commission/ Government Orders, they shall be permitted to avail those benefits. Office is directed to send back all the records, if any, to the respective High Courts. A copy of the consolidated report of the Shetty Commission may also be sent to the respective High Court/ U.T.'s” 5. In view of the aforesaid observations made by their Lordships, we are left with no doubt that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Once Hon'ble the Supreme Court has accepted the recommendations, we cannot lean towards interpretation which would result into reopening the LPA No. 513 of 2011 (O&M) -6- recommendations made by the Shetty Commission. The appeal is without substance and does not merit admission. 6. In view of the above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 4 days in filing of the instant application. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 11, 2011 Atul