C.W.P. No.12448 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.12448 of 1995 Date of Decision: 20.2.2008 Sobha Ram and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of C.W.P. No.12448 of 1995 and 12649 of 1994. Prayer in this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the order dated 5.5.1994, in so far as it denies the benefit of revised pay scales to the petitioners with effect from 1.5.1990, as awarded to other categories of employees. Counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to a revision of pay scales/recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission, the Chief Architect, Haryana, recommended revision of pay scales to all categories of employees w.e.f. 1.5.1990. The petitioners who are Architectural Assistants were however, granted the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.1994 without any rationale or reason. It is further asserted that a Senior Draftsman, i.e. a feeder post for promotion to the post of Architectural Assistant, draws the same pay scale as an Architectural Assistant except for a special pay. In case of Sr. Draftsman, revised pay scales have been granted from 1.5.1990, C.W.P. No.12448 of 1995 2 whereas the petitioners have been denied the said benefit without any reason or cause. It is, therefore, submitted that this fact has been acknowledged by the respondents, in their letter dated 25.4.1994, annexed as Annexure P-5 in CWP No.12649 of 1994 and as no reason exists for denial of the revised pay scales to the petitioners from 1.5.1990, a direction be issued to the respondents to reconsider the entire matter and grant revised pay scales to the petitioners with effect from 1.5.1990. Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that revision of pay scales is not a right. The fact that Government did not revise the petitioners pay scales from a particular date, would not confer any right upon the petitioners to claim revised pay scales from a particular date. It is further submitted that as grant of revised pay scales fell within the sole and exclusive domain of the Government, the petitioners grievance is not justiciable and should be rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioners claim, for equation of their revised pay scales with the feeder posts is inherently flawed and, therefore, should not be granted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Vide order dated 5.5.1994, the Chief Architect, Haryana, Department of Archtecture, issued an order conveying the approval of the Finance Department of the State of Haryana, for regularisation of pay scales already granted by the Chief Architect, with effect from 1.5.1990. The extract of the order reads as follows :- Pay Scale Existing Revised w.e.f. ______________________________________ 1. Assistant Draftsman Rs.1400-2300 Rs.1400-2600 1.5.90 C.W.P. No.12448 of 1995 3 2. Jr.Draftsman Rs.1600-2660 Rs.1640-2900 1.5.90 3. Sr.Draftsman Rs.1640-2900 Rs.2000-3200 1.5.90 4. Architectural Assistant Rs.1640-2900+ Rs.2000-3200 1.4.1994 Rs.100 S.Pay +Rs.100 S.Pay However, with regard to the petitioners post i.e. the post of an Architectural Assistant, pay scale was revised with effect from 1.4.1994. As submitted by counsel for the petitioners, the post of Assistant Draftsman, Junior Draftsman and Senior Draftsman are feeder posts for promotion to the post of Architectural Assistant. A Senior Draftsman, the post immediately preceding the post of Architectural Assistant, draws the same pay scale as an Architectural Assistant except that an Architectural Assistant draws a special pay. All other posts, except that occupied by the petitioners have been granted pay scale w.e.f. 1.5.1990. The State may and does in the exercise of its powers prescribe different dates to different classes and categories of employees for implementation of revised scales of pay. In this case, however, there appears to be no reason whether statutory or administrative for grant of the revised pay scales granted to the petitioners with effect from 1.4.1994, when all other feeder posts were granted revised pay scales with effect from 1.5.1990. Counsel for the respondents has failed to justify the grant of revised pay scales to the petitioners from 1.4.1994, when all other employees have been granted the benefit of revised pay scales from 1.5.1990. The written reply does not disclose reliance upon any rule regulation or statutory provision that could enable the Government to revise the petitioners pay scales from 1.4.1994. It is true that the matters of pay scale and the revision thereof vests in the sole domain of the Government. C.W.P. No.12448 of 1995 4 However, if the order fixing or revising pay scales discloses an arbitrary, unjust or an incomprehensible exercise of administrative power, Courts, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could rectify such an order. As I am satisfied that there exists no reason, legal or factual not to grant the revised pay scales to the petitioners from 1.5.1990, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reconsider the entire matter afresh and pass orders with respect to the petitioners claim, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE