IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 68 of 2006 Reserved on.: 15.10.2009 Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Ram Prakash Moghta …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned erstwhile State Administrate Tribunal dated 4th July, 2005 passed in O.A. No.2344 of 1998. The case of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Research Officer in the Department of Town and Country Planning on 29.8.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. According to the petitioner the post of Research Officer in this department was equated to the post of Research Officer in the Planning Department and Economics and Statistics Department. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 On 8.7.1994 the pay scale of Research Officer in the Planning Department and the Economics and Statistics Department was revised from Rs.2000-3500 to Rs.2410-4000. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation praying that since his post had been equated to the post of Research Officer in the aforesaid two departments he may also be granted the same scale of pay. The Director (Town and Country Planning) forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the State. It would be pertinent to mention that in the State of Himachal Pradesh normally the Pay Commission is not constituted and the recommendations made by the Punjab Pay Commission as accepted by the State of Punjab are made applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh also. In the State of Punjab no post of Research Officer existed in the Town and Country Planning Department. The stand of the State is that the State has taken a decision to equate the post of Research Officer in the Town and Country Planning Department with that of Research Officer in the HPPWD and therefore, the scale being paid to the Research Officer in the HPPWD is also payable to the Research Officer in the Town and Country Planning Department. It is also submitted by the State that whereas the posts of Research Officer in other Departments are Class-I posts in the HPPWD and Town and Country Planning Department these posts are classified as Class-II posts. During the course of arguments, the petitioner has submitted a comparative statement of qualifications, duties and responsibilities and pay scales for the post of Research Officer in 3 the different departments in Himachal Pradesh. The same are as follows:- Comparative Statement of Qualification, Duties and Responsibilities and Pay Scales for the post of Research Officer in the Different Departments in HP. Sr. No Name of Department Qualification Duties and Responsibilities Pay 1986 Scale. 1994 1996 1 Economic & Statistics Masters Degree in Statistics/ Maths/ Economics/ Commerce The Post Exists in Punjab: Collection, Compilation & interpretation of Statistical data 2000- 3500 1410- 4000 w.e.f. 1.1.86 7880- 11660 2 HPPWD (Material Testing Laboratory B.Sc. in Physics/ Chemistry/ Maths The Post Exists in Punjab:- Testing of Material for the construction of buildings by HPPWD like steel, Sand, Soil, Cement, Lime, etc. 2000- 3500 2000- 3500 6400- 10640 3 Town and Country Planning Department Master Degree in Statistics/ Maths/ Economics/ Sociology/ Geography The Post does not Exists in Punjab:- Collection, Compilation and interpretation of Statistical data 2000- 3500 2000- 3500 6400- 10640 4 HIPA Graduate with Economics/ Maths The Post does not Exists in Punjab. Collection, Compilation and interpretation of Statistical data 2000- 3500 1410 4000 w.e.f. 1.1.86 7880- 11660 5 Revenue Department (Land Records) Graduate with Economics/ Maths The Post does not Exists in Punjab. Collection, Compilation and interpretation of Statistical data. 2000- 3500 1410- 4000 w.e.f. 1.1.86 7880- 11660 The facts mentioned in this statement have not been seriously contested before us. Shri K.D.Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon State of H.P. versus P.D.Attri and others, (1999) 3 SCC 217. In the said case the question was whether the State of Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought about in the State of Punjab and Haryana or not. The Apex Court held that the 4 State of Himachal Pradesh being an independent State is not bound to follow every change made in the Punjab. In S.C.Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279, the Apex Court clearly held that it is not the role of the Courts to decide as to whether there should be parity in pay scales or not. Justice Markandey Katju, in his concurring judgement held as follows:- “35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting higher pay). 36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of West Bengal vs. Tarun K.Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347.” This matter also came up for consideration in Union of India and others vs. Hiranmoy Sen and others, (2008) 1 SCC 630, in which the Apex Court took the same view. It is apparent that this Court cannot decide the question as to what pay scale should be granted to the petitioner or what should be the post to which his post should be granted parity. This is for a panel of experts to decide. Various factors have to be taken into consideration while fixing the pay scale and as observed 5 by the Apex Court it is an Expert Committee appointed by the Government which should consider this question. Having said so, on perusal of the record, we find that the State while equating the post of Research Officer in the Town and Country Planning Department with that of Research Officer in the HPPWD has given no other reason but to state that both these posts are Class-II posts. This is not sufficient justification in our view. It is not the classification of the post but the nature and duties of the work done, the qualifications involved and other material factors which have to be taken into consideration. In HPPWD the minimum qualification for Research Officer is B.Sc in Physics/Chemistry or Maths whereas the minimum qualification for the post of Research Officer in the Town and Country Planning Department is a Masters Degree. The nature of duties and responsibilities in the Town and Country Planning Department is more akin to the nature of duties in the Economics and Statistics Department, Himachal Institute of Public Administration and the Revenue Department and relates to collection, compilation and interpretation of and statistical data whereas the in the HPPWD the Research Officer is only engaged in testing work. Keeping in view all these factors, we are of the considered view that the State must decide the questions raised by the petitioner by taking into consideration the nature of the job rather than the classification of the posts. The nature of the job, the responsibilities and duties, educational qualifications, mode of appointment, etc. are the more important factors to be taken into consideration. Just because the post of Research Officer does not 6 exist in the State of Punjab does not entitle the State to equate the said post with the post of Research Officer in the HPPWD without taking into consideration the nature of duties, qualifications, etc. There appears to be an wholesale identity between the petitioner’s job and the job of Research Officer in departments other than HPPWD. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the State Government should be directed to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of not less than three officers not below the rank of Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who shall take into consideration the various factors involved, relating to the grant of parity of pay scales and shall thereafter decide the question whether the post of Research Officer in the Town and Country Planning Department should be equated to that of Research Officer in the HPPWD or any other department. The Committee after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner shall pass a reasoned order. We direct the State to constitute the Committee within one month of the receipt of this order and the Committee shall decide this question within three months of its constitution. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 21st October, 2009 (Surinder Singh), J. ™