IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5162 of 1993 Date of decision : 05.05.2010 Gauge Reader Association, Irrigation Department, Haryana Bhiwani and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana through Commissioner and Secy, Irrigation and Power Deptt., Haryana, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Petitioner No.1 is a registered association of Gauge readers in Irrigation Department of the State of Haryana. The nature of duties to be performed by the Gauge readers are indicated in the para No.2 of the writ petition which includes checking of water level of the canals and its distributaries at various places at various positions, particularly at the inlet and outlet. It is alleged that gauge readers were always equated with the Telephone Attendants in the Irrigation Department, Haryana, who were stationed at various stations and their job is only to attend the telephones whereas job of the gauge readers is to provide timely and periodical information to their superiors by telephone/wireless relating to the inflow and out flow of the water, its level at the head works, on each branch canal etc. From the comparative table as mentioned at page 18 of Annexure P-3, it appears that in the year 1958, the gauge readers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.35-1-45/- equal to the telephone attendants, CWP No.5162 of 1993 whereas, other class IV employees were in the lower pay scale i.e. Rs.30- 1/2-35/-. This pay scale was, however, revised in the year 1969, the gauge readers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.70-85 whereas telephone attendants were placed in the pay scale of Rs.70-95/-. However, their pay scale was also revised at par with the telephone attendants i.e. Rs.75-95 w.e.f. 1.2.1969, the date of revision for the telephone attendants category. Later in the year 1970, telephone attendants and the petitioners were placed in the same pay scale i.e. Rs.110-160/-. In the year 1979, the pay scale of these categories of employees again came to be revised. The telephone attendants were placed in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/- and again revised to Rs.540-15-600/- whereas the gauge readers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.300-430 and continued to remain in the same pay scale. In the year 1983 again, the gauge readers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.350-500 as against Rs.400-600/- revised to Rs.450-600/- for the telephone attendants. This disparity was further continued w.e.f. 1.1.1986 when gauge readers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.775-1025/- and the telephone attendants in the pay scale of Rs.800-1150/-. The pay scale of the telephone attendants was again revised in the year 1987 to Rs.950-1500 without any corresponding revision in case of the gauge readers. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they had been equated with telephone attendants but the pay disparity was introduced right from the year 1979, which continues till date. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners’ duties are more onerous as compared to telephone attendants and despite that pay disparity has been introduced when initially pay scales of these categories was same. Learned State counsel has filed a detailed written statement while admitting the nature of duties of the petitioners as also the pay parity 2 CWP No.5162 of 1993 between the categories of the Govt. employees at the initial stages, it is however, stated that they performed different kind of duties. The fact that they were placed in the same pay band up to the year 1979, is not denied. In the replication, the petitioners have further introduced certain notes regarding disparity like free accommodation to the telephone attendants etc. without any corresponding facilities to the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. To settle doctrine of equal pay for equal work, various considerations are required to be taken note of and one of such consideration is pay party between two categories of the employees at some stage. The similar issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd and another Vs. Union of India and others, 1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 565 wherein it has been held as under:- 14. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that respondent corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India are distinct legal entities carrying on different trading activities and the petitioners cannot claim parity in pay scales with the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India and that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked. It is no doubt true that the respondent corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, are distinct legal entities. But at the same time it cannot be ignored that both are instrumentalities of the Government of India who is bound by the directives contained in Part IV of the Constitution. 16. The case State of U.P.v. U.P. Chaurasia on which reliance has been placed by Shri Mahajan, deals with the question as to equation of duties and responsibilities for applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Therein 3 CWP No.5162 of 1993 this Court has held that the matter of equation of posts for the purpose of equation of pay must be left to the executive and must be determined be expert bodies like Pay Commisison and that if there is such a determination by a commission or committee the court should normally accept it. The principle laid down in the said decision was reiterated in the other decisions relied upon by Shri Mahajan. Here were are not concerned with equation of posts because the posts falling in the abovementioned four categories of employees in the respondent corporation as well as the Cotton Corporation of India are of the same level and employees working on these posts were having the same pay scales in 1970. There is nothing on the record to show that after 1970 there has been any change in the duties and functions of the persons holding these posts in the two corporations which may justify fixation of different pay scales for these posts in the two corporations. The pay scales of the petitioners as revised by order dated April 25,1986, cannot, therefore, be upheld. Respondents 1 and 3 should so revise the pay scales of the petitioners as to be at part with pay scales enjoyed by the employees falling in the same category in the Cotton Corporation of India on the date from which the said revised pay scales are to be applied. Under order dated April 25,1986, the revision of the pay scales of the petitioners has been made with effet from August1, 1983 and is valid up to July 31, 1987. The revison in the pay scales of the petitioners should be made keeping in view the pay scales and allowances enjoyed by the employees falling in the same category in the Cotton Corporation of India on August 1, 1983 and such revision may be made operative up to July 31, 1987, as provided in the order dated April 25, 1986.” Since the petitioners and the telephone attendants were placed in the same pay scale right upto the year 1979, and no factor has been brought on record to introduce disparity between their pay scales thereafter. Apart from that, the details of pay scales indicated in Annexure P-3 as 4 CWP No.5162 of 1993 noticed hereinabove, of the different categories is also admitted in the reply. Though it is duty of the employer to decide the pay scales of the employees, however, it is found that disparity in the pay scales constitutes discrimination and violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has definitely right to interfere. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to re-determine the pay scales of the petitioners keeping in view the pay scale of the telephone attendants who perform no better duties than the petitioners. Petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of pay scale right from the date the disparity has been introduced. However, the arrears shall be restricted to 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition. [ Permod Kohli ] Judge 05.05.2010 sd 5