C.W.P. No.7787 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7787 of 1989 Date of Decision. 19.09.2011 Parshotam Lal and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through its Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents Present: Ms. Surabhi Jain, Advocate for Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The petitioners, who were Senior Surveyors in the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Investigation Division, seek for parity of scales of pay with the Sectional Officers in the Irrigation Department of Government of Punjab. The basis of the claim of the petitioners is that there was, at some point of time, an equation of posts between the Sectional Officer in Irrigation Department and the Senior Surveyor of the Water Resources Investigation Division, when the scales of pay of both of them had been taken as Rs.200-450. Subsequently by Punjab Pay Commission Recommendation, the scales of pay of the Sectional Officers have alone been revised but there have been no corresponding increases or revisions for the Senior Surveyors in the Irrigation Department. The petitioners would rely on a judgment of C.W.P. No.7787 of 1989 -2- this Court in C.W.P. No.2337 of 1987 where the Court had provided parity in scale with reference to some other class of persons working in the petitioners' division and the Department of Irrigation. At the time of filing of the petition, it appears that Sectional Officers were in the scale of Rs.700-1200 and they have claimed the same scale in the writ petition. 2. The State has filed a reply contending that even the judgment referred to in C.W.P. No.2237 of 1987 has been subject of appeal in LPA No.1734 of 1989 and it has not become final. I have verified to find that the LPA was dismissed. The Division Bench held that in case where equation of posts still existed, parity in pay scales must continue. The Division Bench was considering the equation of certain other posts and not the Section Officers and Senior Surveyors. In this case, the equation of same was not retained. On an issue of fact, the respondents would state that the nature of work and the type of responsibility that the Sectional Officers in the Irrigation Department have, are very different from the Surveyors' work in Water Resources Investigation Division and no parity in wages could be claimed. The only fact that at some point of time, there had been parity of scales between the Surveyors in Water Resources Investigation Division and the Sectional Officers in the Irrigation Department, cannot be a basis to maintain the parity for all time together. 3. The claim for parity of scales is clearly misplaced and if the pay scales are periodically revised on the recommendation of the Pay Commission, any person, who claims parity with reference to any other cadre must make appropriate representation to the Government or to C.W.P. No.7787 of 1989 -3- the Pay Commission itself if they can point to any anomaly. Fixation of pay scales is not the job of the Court and it shall best left to expert bodies to determine the scales. This point has been elucidated in a string of rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the benefit could be had to reference to the judgment in State of West Bengal and another Vs. West Bengal Minimum Inspectors Association and others (2010) 5 SCC 225, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. Determination of pay parity is an executive function to be carried by expert bodies and burden to prove disparity in pay is on employee claiming parity. Courts could interfere only where the government decision is patently irrational, unjust or prejudicial. In Shiba Kumar Dutta and others Vs. Union of India and others (1997) 3 SCC 545, while dealing with the issue, where the Government had abolished two different categories i.e. Fitters (T&G) and Jig Borers and in their place, created a new category of Fitters only and the petitioners were aggrieved that earlier they were enjoying the higher pay scale but now brought down to the category of Fitters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “nomenclature and fitment is one of the executive policy of the Government and it would be difficult for the Courts to go into the question of equation of posts or fitment into a particular scale of pay unless the action is arbitrary or there is invidious discrimination between persons similarly situated, doing same type of work. They must be left to be decided by Expert Committees and Government. A Division Bench of this Court had also an occasion to deal with the same issue in Pritam Singh Vs. Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corp. Ltd. C.W.P. No.7787 of 1989 -4- 1995 (3) SLR 440, where two posts of Head Clerk and Accountant were created in the same pay scale and subsequent revision of pay scale also attracted the same hike but still later, the authorities revised pay scale of Accountant only without commensurate increase in the pay scales of the Head Clerk. The Court observed that it is true that once two posts are equated, revision in the pay scale of one would attract similar revision in the other but simply because for the period of ten years or even more, the incumbents of two posts were drawing pay in the same scale, it would not be necessary to revise the pay scale of one if better pay scale is given to the other post. 4. In the light of these authorities, the claim for parity in scales is not possible for the Court to grant. An intervention sought through Court direction is, therefore, rejected and the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 19, 2011 Pankaj*