IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11613 of 2008. Judgment reserved on : 28.04.2011. Date of decision: 02.05.2011. _______________________________________________________ Balam Ram ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. S.R.Badhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant pay scale of ` 5,800-9,200/- to the petitioner from the date of his promotion along with arrears of pay and interest thereon. 2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner was appointed Clerk in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, vide Office Order dated 21.10.1995 in the pay scale of ` 950-1,800/- revised to ` 3,120/- 5,160/-. The petitioner was promoted as Record Keeper in the Consumer Forum in the pay scale of ` 4,020-6,200 vide office order dated 05.01.2000. On promotion, the petitioner was transferred and posted in the Office of District Forum, Una and then again at Mandi. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 3. The posts of Record Keepers in other departments are also carrying pre-revised pay scale of ` 1,800- 3,200/-. The posts of Record Keepers are in the Offices of District and Sessions Judges as well as in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The duties and responsibilities which are performed by the petitioner as Record Keeper in the Office of District Consumer Forum, the Senior Assistants, Accountants, Auditors and Readers posted in the same status also enjoy the pre-revised scale of ` 1,800-3,200/- revised to ` 5,800- 9,200/-. 4. The petitioner is performing the duties of Record Keeper which are identical to the duties of Record Keepers posted in the Registry of High Court and in the Offices of District and Sessions Judges, but he has been deprived of the pay scale of ` 1,800-3,200/- revised to ` 5,800-9,200/-. The petitioner has been given the pay scale of ` 4,020-6,200/- which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner is entitled to ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. It has been alleged that similarly situated persons working in the High Court and in the Offices of District and Sessions Judges enjoy higher pay scale of ` 5,800-9,200/- and , therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same pay scale. 5. The petitioner made representation on 04.12.2003 for removal of above anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioner and to grant him the pay scale of ` 5,800-9,200/- in place of ` 4,020-6,200/-, which was not rejected. However, the petitioner has been supplied a copy of letter dated 08.01.2004 Annexure PE vide which the similar representation of one Hans Raj, Record Keeper, Office of District Consumer Forum, Una was rejected by respondent No.1. In these 3 circumstances, the petitioner has filed the petition for the reliefs noticed above. 6. The respondent No.1 has contested the petition by filing reply. In the reply, it has been stated that after assessing the work- load of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, posts of different categories of employees were created for the State Commission and District Consumer Forums to cope with the smooth functioning. It has been examined at the government level that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums cannot be equated with the High Court and District Courts in terms of workload, powers, jurisdiction or constitutional status. The representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected as the terms and conditions of the staff of District Consumer Forums are framed by the State Government under Rule 7 of the State Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 which provides that terms and conditions of the staff so appointed shall be such as has been laid down by the State Government from time to time. There is no rationale in equating posts with those of High Court and District and Sessions Judges’ offices. 7. The respondent No.2 has filed separate reply. In the reply, it has been stated that representation for grant of pay scale of ` 5,800-9,200/- of petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 as the posts of Record Keepers in District Consumer Forums have been created and sanctioned in the pay scale of ` 4,020-6,200/- by the government. The posts of Record Keepers of District Consumer Forums have been created by the government during 1995 in the pay 4 scale of ` 4,020-6,200/-. The petitioner was promoted as Record Keeper in District Consumer Forum, Mandi, in this scale. It has not been denied that pay scale of Record Keeper in the Office of District and Sessions Judge is ` 5,800-9,200/-. The discrimination alleged by the petitioner for the pay scale of Record Keeper in the Office of District Consumer Forum has been denied. 8. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.1 and reiterated his stand while denying the case pleaded by the respondent No.1. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is entitled to ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. The Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Consumer Forums like petitioner are discharging the same and similar duties as are being performed by the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the Registry of the High Court. The Record Keepers of the District Consumer Forums have been given lesser scale in comparison to the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the Registry of the High Court without any justification. The petitioner is also entitled to same pay scale as has been given to the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the Registry of the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Record Keepers of the District Consumer Forums in Himachal Pradesh are entitled to same scale as given to Record Keepers of District Consumer Forums in Punjab State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied ‘B. Bhaskar and Others versus Union of 5 India Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) 356’. He has also relied ‘Subhash Chander versus Union of India 1994(3) SLR 317’. 10. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Consumer Forums cannot be equated with the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District and Sessions Judges and in the Registry of the High Court. The Record Keepers of the District Consumer Forums have been placed in the pay scale keeping in view the workload, nature of duties and responsibilities of the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Consumer Forums. The pay scales of two posts cannot be fixed equally, merely, on the basis of nomenclature of the posts. The pay scale of a particular post is fixed by the employer and employer has the sole jurisdiction to give particular pay scale to the employee which can be challenged only on established arbitrariness, irrationality and other known grounds. The petitioner has projected his case for grant of scale equal to the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the Registry of the High Court, merely, on the basis of the nomenclature of the posts. There is no foundation in the petition regarding the nature of duties, workload, responsibilities and qualifications of the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Consumer Forums and Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the Registry of the High Court. There is no material on record about the number of files which the Record Keepers are handling in the Offices of District Consumer Forums and the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the Registry of the High Court. 6 11. In State of Punjab and Others versus Surender Singh and another (2007) 13 SCC 231 the Supreme Court has held that even if a daily wage employees is discharging the same functions as a regular employee the authorities are not bound to grant equal pay to such a person who is appointed on daily-wage basis i.e. is appointed for a short term and has not faced the selection process. The principle of equal pay for equal work has to be granted only if there is a total and complete identity between the two persons. In Official Liquidator Versus Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC 1, it has been held that similarity in the designation or quantum of work are not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and that before entertaining and accepting the claim based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value` judgment, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. 12. In B. Bhaskar (supra), it has been held that in the matter of parity in pay scale, the Court will not hesitate to interfere if a clear case of hostile discrimination is made. In the present case, there is no evidence that petitioner and Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the Registry of the High Court are discharging similar duties nor there is evidence regarding workload, qualification, the nature of duties, responsibilities so as to record a finding that the respondents have discriminated the petitioner for placing him in lesser pay scale in comparison to pay scale given to the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the Registry of High Court. The petitioner has not established hostile discrimination between the Record Keepers of District Consumer Forums and the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the 7 Registry of the High Court. ‘B. Bhaskar’ (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 13. In so far as the ‘Subhash Chander’ (supra) is concerned, that judgment is based upon its own facts. There is no factual material on record in the present case regarding the nature of work, responsibilities, functional needs in the case of Record Keepers of District Consumer Forums and the Record Keepers of the Offices of District Judges and Registry of the High Court. The petitioner has simply based his case on the nomenclature of posts without placing anything on record how the Record Keepers of District Forums can be equated with the Record Keepers working in the Offices of District Judges and in the Registry of the High Court. On the basis of nomenclature of two posts equal pay cannot be granted to both the posts. The conditions of services of Record Keepers working in the District Consumer Forums are based upon the State Consumer Protection Rules, 1988. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the employees in Himachal Pradesh are given the pay scales on Punjab pattern and in Punjab the Record Keepers in District Consumer Forums are getting higher pay scale in comparison to the Record Keepers working in the District Consumer Forums in Himachal Pradesh. This submission is noticed only to be rejected. There is no foundation in the petition that the Record Keepers working in the District Consumer Forums in Himachal Pradesh are entitled to the pay scale which the Record Keepers are getting in District Consumer Forums in Punjab. In addition, the terms and conditions of the pay scale of the Record Keepers in Himachal 8 Pradesh working in District Consumer Forums are regulated by the State Government under the Rules. Simply, in Punjab the Record Keepers in District Consumer Forums are getting higher pay scales is no ground to allow the same pay scale to Record Keepers working in District Consumer Forums in Himachal Pradesh. Thus, seen from any angle, there is no merit in the petition. 15. In view of above, the petition is dismissed. May 2, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.