LPA No. 1000 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1000 of 2010 Date of decision : 27.10.2010 State of Punjab and another ....Appellants V/s Kewal Krishan Garg and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the respondents. RANJAN GOGOI J. (ORAL) Learned counsels are heard on merits, as prayed for. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.02.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding registered and numbered as CWP No. 3285 of 1983. The respondents/writ petitioners are holding the post of Research Assistant (Grade ‘B’) in the Irrigation Department of the State of Punjab. They had instituted the writ petition claiming parity of pay with the Junior Engineers who are in a higher scale. The writ petition initially was dismissed but the Latters Patent Appeal filed against the order of learned Single Judge having been allowed, the matter was taken to the Apex Court. The Apex Court by an interim order dated 05.08.2003 directed a fresh LPA No. 1000 of 2010 2 consideration of the claims of the respondents/writ petitioners by a Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary and Finance Secretary of the State of Punjab. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, the Committee considered the matter in light of the parameters laid down in the order dated 05.08.2003 of the Apex Court, namely, (1) recommendations of First, Second & Third pay Commission (2) The parity of pay-scales in Class I and Class II posts in the Research and Engineer Wings and (3) Recommendations of the Department which favoured such parity. The report of the Committee having been placed before the Apex Court and objections having been raised to certain findings/conclusions of the Committee, the Apex Court by order dated 17.09.2003 remanded the matter to this Court for a fresh consideration in light of the objections raised. That is how the writ petition came to be heard once again by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The same having been allowed on the ground and reasons mentioned in the order dated 19.02.2010, the State of Punjab has filed the present appeal. Certain other essential facts which will be required for the purpose of the present adjudication may be set-out at this stage. Earlier to 1968, the pay-scale of Research Assistant was ` 135-275/- whereas, that of Junior Engineers was ` 100-300/-. The First Punjab Pay Commission recommended enhanced pay with effect from 01.01.1968 for Research Assistant as ` 200-500/- and ` 200-450/- for Junior Engineers. For Junior Engineers a selection grade-pay of ` 450-500/- was also recommended. It is the common case of the parties that pay scales as recommended by First Pay Commission was implemented for both categories of employees. LPA No. 1000 of 2010 3 The Second Pay Commission recommended the pay-scale of ` 570-1080/- for Research Assistant and ` 570-1000/- for Junior Engineers with effect from 01.01.1978. While the pay-scale recommended for Research Assistant was implemented by Government, the pay-scale implemented for Junior Engineers was ` 570-1080/- i.e. the same pay-scale as recommended for Research Assistant. However, with effect from 14.01.1981, the pay-scale of Junior Engineers was enhanced to ` 700-1200/- and selection grade to ` 800-1400/-. The Third Pay Commission, notwithstanding the different pay-scales for the two categories, again recommended a pay-scale of ` 1500-2640/- for both categories of posts, however, providing pay protection of existing staff in the scale of ` 1640- 2925/-. So far as the Junior Engineers are concerned, the State of Punjab, however, deviated from the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission and sanctioned a higher scale of ` 1640-2925/- for all Juniors Engineers with selection grade pay-scale of ` 1800-3200/-. It may be noticed at this stage that the said enhanced pay-scale was the result of a series of agitational steps/methods adopted by the Junior Engineers. Having noticed all the essential facts that would be required for an effective adjudication of the issues arising, the Court may now take into account the submissions raised by the parties. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has taken the Court through the report of the Committee constituted by the Apex Court. Mr. Bhardwaj has pointed out that the parameters indicated by the Apex Court in its order dated 05.08.2003 were considered by the Committee, who, in addition had taken note of the duties and responsibilities of the two posts. Learned counsel has submitted that parity LPA No. 1000 of 2010 4 of pay-scales of two posts as recommended by the Pay Commission was not a conscious decision. It is also pointed out that recommendations of the Pay Commission are not binding on the Government and the decision to enhance the scale of pay of Junior Engineers is the outcome of a conscious process. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that while deciding to maintain higher pay-scale for Junior Engineer, the Committee had also taken note of the recommendations of the department as well as the parity of pay scales in the other classes of the service of the two streams i.e. Research and Engineering. Learned counsel has specifically drawn the attention of the Court to the findings of the Committee with regard to the difference in the duties and responsibilities of the two posts and has contended that such differences would provide an intelligible differentia to justify the action taken. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant have been hotly contested by Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners. At the outset, learned counsel has pointed out that the cadre of Research Assistant in the Irrigation Department is extremely small consisting of 35 persons, whereas, the number of Junior Engineers would exceed 3000. Learned counsel has also referred to the order of the Apex Court dated 25.08.1993 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10549 of 1990 to submit that it is no longer in dispute that there is absolute parity of pay between Research Officer and Executive Engineers which are the Class 1 posts in the two streams of service as well as between the Assistant Research Officers and State Divisional Engineers which are the Class II posts in the respective streams of the service. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the Committee in its report dated 25.08.2003 had LPA No. 1000 of 2010 5 overlooked the parity of pay-scales of Class I and Class II posts in the two streams of the service. The recommendations of the department in favour of such parity have also not been considered. Insofar as the finding of the Committee that the parity of pay-scales recommended by Pay Commission is incidental and not conscious, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel that there is an apparent error in the said finding. Though the Second Pay Commission has recommended the same pay-scales, which had not been implemented, the pay-scales recommended by Third Pay Commission had reintroduced such parity. According to learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in arriving at the impugned conclusion and the order passed, therefore, would not require any interference. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. While it is correct that only three parameters were laid down by the Apex Court for consideration by the Committee constituted by it, the Committee did take into account the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two posts. In view of the order passed by Apex Court remanding the matter to this Court for a consideration of the report of the Committee in light of the objections raised and furthermore as the additional parameter considered by the Committee is a relevant consideration, we are of the view that the findings and conclusions of the Committee based on all the parameters should receive our consideration. So considered, we find that it is an undisputed fact that the parity of pay-scales of Class I and Class II posts of the two streams of service had not at all been considered by the Committee. The recommendations of the department favouring such parity had also not LPA No. 1000 of 2010 6 received due and proper consideration of the Committee. Insofar as recommendation of the Pay Commission is concerned, it has already been noted earlier that the Third Pay Commission had sought to reintroduce the parity of pay-scale between the two posts which was also recommended by the Second Pay Commission but the same had got disturbed due to the decision of the Government to grant a higher pay-scales to Junior Engineers with effect from 14.01.1981. In light of the said facts it cannot be said that recommendation of the Pay Commission to grant parity was incidental. Insofar as duties and responsibilities are concerned, the two posts being in two different streams it is not the case of the respondents-writ petitioners that the duties attached to the two posts are identical. The nature of work and the functions of the two posts being different, the duties and responsibilities are bound to be different. Notwithstanding the above difference, the Pay Commissions had consciously recommended parity of pay-scales. In doing so the duties performed in the Research Wing by Research Assistants and those of the Junior Engineers were before the Pay Commission. Successive Pay Commissions have recommended parity of pay- scales between the two posts keeping in mind the nature of duties and responsibilities performed. Such recommendations were the outcome of a conscious decision of the expert body. There is parity of the pay-scales of the posts belonging to the two streams in the higher echelons of service namely Class I and Class II. The department has also recommended parity of pay-scales. In such a situation and particularly keeping in mind the numerical strength of the cadre of Research Assistant, we are of the view that any interference with the order of learned Single Judge is not called for. LPA No. 1000 of 2010 7 Consequently, we affirm the order passed by learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal. No costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE October 27, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE