CWP No.13055 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No.13055 of 1993 Date of decision : April 16, 2009 Anil Kumar Aggarwal and another ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 2. CWP No.11545 of 1992 Naresh Kumar and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of CWP No.13055 of 1993 and CWP No.11545 of 1992 filed by the petitioners, Sub Divisional CWP No.13055 of 1993 -2- Engineers, working in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and governed by Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Employees Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). It is the case of the petitioners that from the very establishment of the Board, its employees are granted the same pay scale of pay as admissible to their counterparts in Haryana Government Departments. The Sub Divisional Officers (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Horticulture) working in Board were granted the pay scale of Rs.400-700 in the year 1972 when the Engineering Wing was formed. Such pay scale was equivalent to their counterparts working as Sub Divisional Engineers/Assistant Engineers in P.W.D. Department, Government of Haryana. Pay scales were revised from time to time more particularly w.e.f. 1-4-79 and 1-1-86 and the Sub Divisional Engineers working in the Board were granted the same revised pay scale which was granted to their counterparts in the Government of Haryana. On the acceptance of recommendation of 4th Pay Commission, the pay scale of Sub Divisional Engineers/Assistant Engineers in P.W.D. Department were revised to Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 1-1-86. The Board in its meeting held on 1-6-87 resolved to revise the pay scales of employees of the Board and the Market Committees on the pattern of the pay scale granted to the employees of the State. The Board adopted in its entirety the circular dated 29-4-87 revising pay scale of its employees w.e.f. 1-1-86. On 2-6-89, the Government of Haryana decided to revise the pay scale of Engineers and Doctors and granted the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 CWP No.13055 of 1993 -3- w.e.f. 1-5-89. After completion of 5 and 12 years of regular service, the higher pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 and Rs.4100-5300 was contemplated to be granted. In terms of the said circular of the State Government, the Board in its meeting held on 9-8-89 approved the placement of its Engineers in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 and of higher pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 and Rs.4100-5300 after 5 years and 12 years of regular service respectively. The decision of the Board has been appended with the writ petition as Annexure P-3. It may be noticed that vide circular dated 16-5-90, the selection grade of Rs.4100-5300 was limited to 20% of the cadre posts. In terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, the decision of the Board was referred to the Government for authorization. But the State Government did not authorize the grant of higher pay scale to the employees of the Board and similarly situated employees of the some other Boards and Corporations, even though many representations were submitted by the aggrieved employees including petitioners. On 6-3-92, another circular was issued by the State Government that benefit of revised pay scale is admissible to only those Engineers who are working in 3 Wings of Public Works Department of the State. However, the State Government after prolonged correspondence approved the revision of pay scale of the employees of the Board w.e.f. 1-4-93 though the pay scale of Engineers and other categories of employees of the State Government were revised from 1-5-89. The said communication does not contemplate grant of selection grade after completion of 5 and 12 years of service as well. CWP No.13055 of 1993 -4- Reference has been made in CWP No.13055 of 1993 to a writ petition (CWP No.14200 of 1992) filed by similarly situated employees of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 18-5-1993. The operative part of the order is as under:- "Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. It is held that the petitioners will be entitled to the revised scales of pay with effect from May 1, 1989 as has been granted to the persons working in the Corporation by way of deputation or in the Public Works Department of the Govt. The needful shall be done within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They will be entitled to all consequential benefits. In case, the needful is not done within the aforesaid time, the petitioners shall be entitled to the payment of the arrears etc. along with interest @12% per annum from the date of accrual to the date of actual payment. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs." It has been further pleaded in the aforesaid writ petition that the Engineers working in other Boards and Corporations under the control of Haryana Government i.e. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Municipal Committees, Improvement Trust and Haryana State Electricty Board have been granted benefit of revised pay scale w.e.f. 1-5-89 and denial of this benefit to the petitioners is wholly illegal and arbitrary. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that such pay scale has been ordered to be granted w.e.f. 1-4-93 after due consideration keeping in view the various administrative factors and financial constraints. In respect of the CWP No.13055 of 1993 -5- decision of the learned Single Judge, the respondents replied upon the stay granted by the Division Bench in LPA No.725 of 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation and others vs. (1) G.S. Uppal and Ors. (2) Chakrawarti Garg (3) A.S. Dhir, (2008) 7 SCC 375 arising out of CWP No.14200 of 1992 and LPA No.725 of 1993. It is argued that the Sub Divisional Engineers of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation, another Government company has been ordered to be granted the same pay scale as is to the three Wings of Public Works Department of the State Government. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the said pay scale is not granted to the similarly situated Sub Divisional Engineers of the Board. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. I do not find any merit in the stand of the respondents in the written statement that revised pay scale has been found admissible to the employees of the Board w.e.f. 1-4-1993 as against 1-5-89 granted to Sub Divisional Engineers of the three Wings of the Public Works Department of the State Government and some other Boards and Corporations. Though, the stand of the respondent in the written statement is that revised pay scale has been given keeping in view the various administrative factors and financial constraints but the details of any of such administrative factors and financial constrains have not been disclosed. CWP No.13055 of 1993 -6- The State Government has revised the pay scale of its employees and also approved such revised pay scale to similarly situated Engineers of many other Boards and Corporations. The respondent-State is maintaining parity in respect of pay scale of employees of Board or Corporations with that of the employees of State Government. Such fact has not been disputed in the writtten statement. Therefore, to grant revised scale only w.e.f. 1-4-93 instead of 1-5-89 seems to be totally arbitrary and without any reasonable basis. The Board has resolved to grant higher pay scale in the manner granted by State Government to its employees. Such resolution was based upon the circular of the State Government. Therefore, the plea of administrative factors and financial constraints seems to be a plea bereft of any factual and legal basis. Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.S. Uppal's case (Supra) dealing with the similar claim of another Government company held to the following effect:- "The decision of the Government in rejecting the proposal of the Board of Directors suffers from the vice of invidious discrimination and cannot be sustained because the very same decision of the Board with regard to all other employees has since been accepted and approved by the State Government. On the scrutiny of the material on record, it is clear that the appellants did not produce any evidence on record to establish that the working conditions, responsibilities and nature of duties etc. of the respondents are different to their counter parts working in the same categories in the State Government, Boards and other Corporations, etc. and also the persons who are working with the corporation on deputation. A careful examination shows that the issue was not really CWP No.13055 of 1993 -7- about grant of scales to corporation engineers on part with PWD engineers. When the pay revision took place, the revised pay scales that were given to the engineers of the State Government were also give to the engineers of the corporation with effect from 1-1-1986 thereby maintaining the parity. What was not extended to the corporation employees, which is the subject matter of the grievance, is the further revision by way of removal of anomaly in pay scales given to AEE/ AE/ SDO/ SDE of the State Government with effect from 1-5-1989 vide circular dated 2- 6-1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real question would be whether what is given by way of anomaly removal in the case of engineers of state government, should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of engineers of the corporation. When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a class of government servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment to the pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the pay reivsion extended to the government servants has already been extended to the employees of the corporation also, it follows that any correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the government servants should also be made in the case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the pay scale which is subject matter of the correction. It should be borne in mind that the question whether corporation engineers were on par with PWD engineers and should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when the pay scale revision granted to Government (PWD) engineers was extended to the corporation engineers also with effect from 1-1-1986. That question did not again arise when the anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with reference to the Government engineers. When the anomaly in the pay CWP No.13055 of 1993 -8- reivison was rectified with reference to the Government engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of government engineers was rectified, the rectification should apply to corporation engineers also to maintain the parity." In view of the above, it is apparent that vide circular dated 2-6-89, the State Government has removed an anomaly in respect of pay scale granted to Engineers. Therefore, such an anomaly is to be required to be removed from the same date and in the same manner as was done in case of the employees of the State Government in respect of the employees of the Board. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed. The decision of the State Government in granting revised pay scale w.e.f. 1-4-93 vide Annexure P-7 in writ petition No.13055 of 1993 is set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefits of circular dated 2-6-89, as modified, to the Sub Divisional Engineers of the respondent-Board w.e.f. 1-5-1989, as in the case of employees of the State Government. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) April 16, 2009 JUDGE manju