C.W.P. No. 1012 of 1990 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1012 of 1990 Date of Decision : 24.12.2010 Joginder Pal Walia & another .......... Petitioners Versus The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Sector 6, Panchkula ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to grant higher pay scale to the Accountant / Head Clerk from Mandi Supervisor, which is a feeder post. The petitioners are working as Accountant in different Market Committees. The pay scale of the Accountant / Head Clerk was higher to the Mandi Supervisor / Fee Collector. The details of the pay scale is reproduced below for ready reference :- C.W.P. No. 1012 of 1990 -2- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accountant/ Head Clerk Mandi Supervisor/Fee Collectors ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prior to 1.8.1969 116-300 60-175 w.e.f. 1.8.1969 140-300 Acctt. 160-400 Head Clerk 160-225 Plus Rs. 25 as Spl. Pay. w.e.f. 1.4.1971 160-400 140-300 w.e.f. 27.3.1979 225-500 160-400 w.e.f. 1.4.1979 600-1100 525-1050 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 1400-2600 1400-2600 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The pay scale of Accountant / Head Clerk was always higher to the Mandi Supervisor / Fee Collector since beginning. After the pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.1986 their pay scale was made equal. The petitioners are governed by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1974). Under these rules the post of Head Clerk / Accountant are either filled up by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion from Mandi Supervisor / Fee Collector having three years experience. The post of Mandi Supervisor / Fee Collector is a feeder cadre post for promotion to the post of Head Clerk / Accountant. Grievance of the petitioners is that after revision of pay scale in 1986, the pay scale of the Feeder cadre and promotional post have been kept equal. The petitioners made representation to the Department for grant of higher pay scale for the promotional post of Head Clerk / Accountant than the Feeder post of Mandi Supervisor C.W.P. No. 1012 of 1990 -3- / Fee Collector. The Anomaly Committee constituted by the Haryana Government recommended recommended as under :- “On the question of anomaly which have crept in due to clubbing of pay scales, the commission has recommended that the promotional scale of an employee should definitely be different from the scale from which promotion is made. It has also suggested upward revision of a few pay scales wherever the promotional scale has become identical with the feeder scale.” In the written statement filed by the respondents the stand taken is that the petition is belated, as it has been filed against the pay revision of 1986 in the year 1990. It is admitted that the post of Accountant was higher post than that of Mandi Supervisor / Fee Collector till 1985. The 4th Pay Commission, which was appointed by the Government of India, made a number of recommendations for reducing the categories of pay scales of different categories of employees. The Haryana Government, while implementing the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission, reduced the number of categories of posts and as a consequence thereof now a common pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 came into effect from 1.1.1986. A number of categories of posts were reduced and the same pay scales evolved for different categories of posts as in the case of Accountants and Mandi Supervisors / Fee Collectors. However, when the Mandi Supervisor / Fee Collector is now made Accountant, he is C.W.P. No. 1012 of 1990 -4- given one increment as a promotional benefit. There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by recommending a common pay scale by the 4th Pay Commission. By giving benefit of one increment, no injustice has been done to the petitioners and there is no violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. R.K. Malik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunder Lal Jain and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 1995(1) SLR 215, on the proposition that it is legitimate aspiration of every citizen to be better placed, both, in status and pay on promotion and if this is to be frustrated, it will obviously damper the growth of the man which is an natural desire of everyone. If there is no increase in the emoluments of a citizen on his promotion, no one would ever work with zeal and dedication. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the petition, I am of the view, that the ratio of the judgment in Sunder Lal Jain and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) is not applicable in the present case. The petitioners in that case were Lab. Attendants, Junior Lab. Attendants and Senior Lab Attendants. The educational qualification of Lab. Attendant was matriculate and for promotion to the post of Senior Lecture Assistants, B.Sc. qualification was prescribed. There was no equation of both the posts on the basis of educational qualification. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to remove the anomaly. C.W.P. No. 1012 of 1990 -5- In the present case, a specific stand has been taken in the written statement that the petitioners have not made a representation for removal of an anomaly to the Government. Reference in this regard is being made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee JT 1998(4) SC 228. In this case Junior Engineers were serving in the scale of 1640-2900 after completing 15 years of service. They were placed in the scale of 2000-3500. The scale of 2000-3500 was also the scale of Assistant Engineer, which was a promotional post. In the Fundamental Rules there was a provision for grant of one increment on promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer to the Junior Engineer. The claim of the Junior Engineer for a higher scale after being placed in the scale of 2000-3500 and on further promotion as Assistant Engineer was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that after being placed in the scale of Assistant Engineer i.e. 2000-3500 the Junior Engineer is debarred from claiming the same benefit again. His seniors are also getting the same pay scale of 2000-3500, he can not be allowed to go ahead of them after having avail of placement in the scale of 2000-3500 after completing 15 years of service benefit of one increment on promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer as per the Fundamental Rule of promotion to the higher post was considered appropriate. In the present case, after revision of the pay scales the lower post has been given the same pay scale as to the higher post. C.W.P. No. 1012 of 1990 -6- Benefit of one increment is given on promotion to the post of Accountant / Head Clerk. In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee (supra), the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 24.12.2010 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE