IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2501/2008 Decided on:23.4.2009 Rameshwar Thakur and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.yes For the petitioners : Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioners No.1 and 2 were appointed as Book-Binders on the basis of the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. Petitioners No.3 and 4 were promoted from Class- IV post to the post of Book-Binders. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Book-Binder as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the respondent-State is matriculation. The petitioners were granted the pay scale of Rs. 400-600 as is evident from the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Annexure P-1). Vide notification dated 2.1.1993, respondent-State has revised the pay scale of the Book-Binders in the department of Agriculture from Rs. 400-600 to Rs. 1200-2100 with effect from 8.2.1989. Similarly vide 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 notification dated 12.9.1991, the pay scale of the post of Book-Binder in the Printing and Stationery Department has been revised from Rs. 400- 600 to Rs. 1200-2100 with effect from 8.2.1989. The pay scale of the petitioners was revised from Rs. 450-700 to Rs. 950-1800. The petitioners made representation to the Director, Language and Culture. He recommended the case of the petitioners to the Additional Secretary, Language and Culture to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 2.12.1993. The Director, Language and Culture took up the matter with the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Language and Culture) on 13.9.1994. He has specifically mentioned that the educational qualification of the Mender/Book-Binder of his department was higher than that of other departments. He has proposed scale of Rs. 1200-2100 to the petitioners with effect from 8.2.1989. The case was rejected by the Anomaly Committee on 19.9.1994. It was primary rejected on the ground that the pay scale released to the petitioners was based on Punjab pattern and the matter was sub-judice. Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents of not granting pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 to the petitioners at par with their counter-parts working in the Departments of Agriculture and Printing and Stationery is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that his clients are discharging the same duties which are being discharged by the Book- Binders working in the Departments of Agriculture and Printing and Stationery. He lastly contended that the minimum qualification prescribed for filling up the post of Book-Binder in the Department of Language and Culture is Matriculation and in other departments it is only middle standard. 3 Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the order passed by the Anomaly Committee on 19.9.1994. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioners were granted the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. The pay scale of Book-Binders serving in the Departments of Agriculture and Printing and Stationery was revised to Rs. 1200-2100 with effect from 8.2.1989 vide notification dated 12.9.1991 and 2.1.1993. The petitioners are serving under the same employer i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh. They are discharging the same and similar duties which are being discharged by their counter-parts in other departments. The only reason assigned for rejecting the case of the petitioners as per letter dated 19.9.1994 is that the pay scale has been released to the petitioners on Punjab pattern. Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate has taken me through the qualification prescribed for the post in question in the State of Punjab vide letter dated 22.10.1990. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Book- Binder at serial No. 16 is middle standard with three years practical experience in Book-binding. He has to prepare the old records/books/manuscripts on modern scientific lines and he has to attend the binding work of the records/library books. A bare perusal of Annexure A-2 reveals that the duties being discharged by the petitioners are onerous vis-à-vis their counter-parts in other Departments. The Director, Language and Culture after taking into consideration the duties being discharged by the petitioners on the basis of their qualification had recommended the removal of anomaly in their pay scale. The same stood rejected as noticed above on 19.9.1994. The justification given in Annexure R-1 dated 19.9.1994 for rejecting the case of the petitioners for 4 higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 is not plausible. The minimum qualification prescribed in the State of Punjab for the post of Book-Binder is only middle. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, the minimum qualification prescribed is matriculation. The duties being discharged by them are more responsible vis-à-vis the duties being discharged by their counter-parts of the State of Punjab. The State has to ensure that the decisions are taken for granting the pay scales on the basis of accepted norms. In the present case the Department of Agriculture and Printing and Stationery have already granted/released pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 to the Book-Binders. The qualification for filling up the post of Book- Binder in Agriculture and Printing and Stationery Department is only middle class. The volume of work is more in the Department of Language and Culture vis-à-vis other departments. The Director, Language and Culture has recommended the case of the petitioners and has assigned the reasons for doing so. In case there is any disparity/anomaly/discrimination ex-facie present in the pay scales then the State Government is required to redress the same at the earliest. In the present case also since the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 has been released to the Book-Binders working in the Departments of Agriculture and Printing and Stationery, there was no occasion to reject the case of the petitioner on 19.9.1994. The petitioners are discharging the same duties which are being discharged by their counter-parts in other departments and are entitled to the same pay scale on the principle of “equal pay equal work”. The employer cannot discriminate while granting the pay scales to the similarly situate persons. There are no cogent reasons assigned why the petitioners could not be granted the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 with effect from 8.2.1989. The 5 decision of the respondent-State not to grant pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 with effect from 8.2.1989 on the basis of letter dated 19.9.1994 is arbitrary. The pay scales adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh on Punjab pattern should also pass the test of reasonableness. The State while adopting/implementing the pay scales of the State of Punjab should ensure due application of mind to shun arbitrariness and unreasonableness. The State of Himachal Pradesh is under no obligation to blindly follow and allow the pay scales to its employees as applicable in the State of Punjab. The State of Himachal Pradesh is a sovereign state and must discharge its duties expected to be discharged by the sovereign State. (see: State of Himachal Pradesh versus P.D. Attri and others, (1999) 3 SCC 217). The State Government being the principal employer should ensure that the pay scales are fixed on the basis of qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules after taking into consideration the duties discharged by the employees etc. It can always deviate in case arbitrariness results while implementing the pay scales adopted from the State of Punjab. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure R-1 dated 19.9.1994 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 to the petitioners with effect from 8.2.1989. The petitioners are held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. The needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 23.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*