IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10010 of 2008 Date of decision: 03.03.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Surinder Pal Minhas. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in the respondent-Department and has since retired. Vide memo dated 13.01.1997, Annexure R-I, issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture, higher pay scale of ` 3700-5300 was granted to those Junior Engineers who were working in the said for more than eighteen years. It was also made applicable to the Junior Engineers working in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide letter dated 01.12.1992, Annexure A-3. However, Junior Engineers working in other departments, such as, IPH and PWD were left out of the purview of the revised higher pay scale of ` 3700-5300 after completion of eighteen years of service. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 2. The case of the petitioner is that there was parity in pay scales, including time scales in respect of the Junior Engineers working in the departments of Public Works (PWD), Irrigation and Public Health (IPH), Agriculture, Forest, Town and Country Planning etc. in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is stated that nature of duties and functions of the Junior Engineers working in all these departments is identical. Thus, according to the petitioner, adoption of higher pay scale of ` 3700-5300 in terms of the aforesaid letter dated 13.01.1997, Annexure R-I, only in respect of the Junior Engineers working in the department of agriculture and not to other departments referred to hereinabove is arbitrary and discriminatory and thus violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. 3. In support of the above contention, the petitioner has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following authorities: “(1) Randhir Singh vs. Union of India & others, (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 618, para 9 whereof reads as under: 9. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the 'powers, functions and privileges of a police officer', there duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In answer the allegation in the petition that the driver-constables of the Delhi police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay then ...3... others? There is none. The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not a principle which the courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from January 1, 1973, the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect. Reliance has also been placed on: (2) Alvaro Norohna ferriera and another vs. Union of Indian and others, (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 408. Paras 10 and 13 of the judgment, being relevant are reproduced below: 10. the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has gained judicial recognition. The principle of incorporated in Article 14 when understood from the angle provided in Article 39(d) of the Constitution is held to be the recognition of the aforesaid doctrine. It has been held in Randhir Singh v. Union of India that the principle “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Their Lordships pointed out: “To the vast majority of the people in India the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay.” .............. 13. Pay scale of District and Sessions Judges in the Union Territory of Goa was made on par with that of Delhi by means of the rules and regulations formulated by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the provisions of “the Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Act, 1965”. The change was effected in 1982 on the premise that the judicial officers in Delhi were upgraded as Class I officers and since the Union Territory of Delhi was declared a metropolitan city, the pay scales were equated with the pay scales of ....4.... judicial officers in other metropolitan cities. We are not against revision of the pay scales of the judicial officers in the Union Territory of Delhi on the basis of any justifiable grounds. But in doing so the pay scales of their counterparts working in other Union Territories cannot suffer.” (3) State of U.P. & others vs. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association, (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 250 (para 13). (4) Union of India & Others vs. Satya Brata Chaowdhury & others, (2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 383 (paras 17 and 18). 4. Reliance has also been placed on judgment dated 23.04.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Rameshwar Thakur and others vs. State of H.P. & Ors., Latest Himachal Law Judgment 2009 (HP) 1466, para 8 whereof is as under: “8. In case there is any disparity/ anomaly/ discrimination ex-facie present in the pay scales then the State Government is required to redress the same at the earliest. In the present case also since the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 has been released to the Book-Binders working in the Departments of Agriculture and Printing and Stationery, there was no occasion to reject the case of the petitioner on 19.9.1994. The petitioners are discharging the same duties which are being discharged by their counter-parts in other departments and are entitled to the same pay scale on the principle of “equal pay equal work”. The employer cannot discriminate while granting the pay scales to the similarly situate persons. There are no cogent reasons assigned why the petitioners could not be granted the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 with effect from 8.2.1989. The decision of the respondent-State not to grant pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 with effect from 8.2.1989 on the basis of letter dated 19.9.1994 is arbitrary.” 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner ...5... and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law and particularly the judgments referred to hereinabove, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 3rd March, 2011 (virender)