CWP No.7235 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 7235 of 1996 Date of Decision: 30 - 8 - 2010 Raj Kumar Sharma and others ....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: None for the petitioners. Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Various employees who retired from the office of Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh approached this Court for quashing the impugned orders dated 1.6.1995 and 17.11.1995, Annexures P15 and P17 respectively, wherein proposal sent by the Director General of Police, Punjab – respondent No.3 (hereinafter to be referred as, `DGP') was rejected by the Government. In the proposal forwarded by the DGP, it was stated that Senior Assistants working in the Police Department, who were placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.1800-3200/- were entitled to grant of initial start of Rs.1920/- alongwith additional pay of Rs.120/- and further request was CWP No.7235 of 1996 [2] made that these Senior Assistants be also paid a Special Pay of Rs.80/-. In the writ petition, it is pleaded that Department of the petitioners vide circular dated 30.4.1956 (Annexure P1) was reclassified as Class `A' office and, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same treatment as is given to the Senior Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers working in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, where the employees posted on these posts were given the initial start of Rs.1920/-. Petitioners pray that like Senior Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers posted in Civil Secretariat, they are also entitled to parity. It is also not disputed that the circular dated 30.4.1956 was revised by the Government on 10.3.1969 and the offices were reclassified on functional basis. Those offices which were closely and directly associated with shaping of policies and programmes were rated as Class `A' offices and those responsible mainly for execution of policies and programmes so formulated, were placed in the category known as `B' class offices. In view of this office of the petitioners fall under category `B' class. The argument advanced herein was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Tej Kaur v. Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, 1996(2) SCT 120 and the Division Bench after considering the argument in concluding paras 12 and 13 has held as under:- “The ratio decidendi of the said decision was that in service matters merit or experience could be a proper basis for classification. Same question as to whether there could be classification on basis of experience and qualification was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, 1994(2) SCT 296(SC) : JT 1994(1) S.C. 574. A similar argument of 'equal pay for equal work' pertaining to employees performing CWP No.7235 of 1996 [3] similar duties was advanced. The Supreme Court held that classification made by expert body should not be disturbed except on strong reasons and there could be classification on the basis of experience or academic qualifications. The said principle that there can be classification on basis of seniority even was accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Sri Deb Kumar Mukherjee and others, 1993(2) SCT 793(Cal) : JT 1995(3) S.C. 333. In fact the Supreme Court again in the case of Secretary, Finance Department and others v. The West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, 1992(2) SCT 301 (SC) : 1992 (2) SLR 82 deprecated the courts to enter on the test of job evaluation. The courts have only to interfere if the action of the State was arbitrary. In paragraph 12 it observed :- "We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well-settled that equation of posts and determination of pay-scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinary courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different group of employees." 13. What then is the position in the present case ? The gist of the same is that earlier there were two scales namely Rs.600- 1120/- and Rs.800-1400/-. From 1.1.1986 after certain decisions already referred to above, they were brought into CWP No.7235 of 1996 [4] one scale of Rs.1800-3200/-. The respondents-State of Punjab subsequently decided that those Senior Assistants/Senior Scales Stenographers who were in the scale of Rs. 800-1400/- before 1.1.1986 would be given the initial start of Rs. 1920/-. Subsequently, the benefit of initial start of Rs. 1920/- was given to those employees who were in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 800-1400/- from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1987. It is obvious from aforesaid that the decision in the case of Krishan Lal Sehgal (supra) and P.S. Savita (supra) will not help the petitioners because therein there were two different pay scales. In the present case the scale remained the same. All the Senior Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers remained in the scale of Rs.1800- 1400/-. There was only some difference of pay but in the same pay scale. Certain Senior Scale Stenographers and Senior Assistants who had earlier been in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.800-1400/- before 31.12.1987 by virtue of their seniority were allowed to have initial start of Rs. 1920/-. The scale was not changed. They were a class apart on the cut-off date of 31.12.1987. Seniority and increments are all parts of the same service and cadre. Certain senior persons at times are given more salary and if initial start of Rs. 1920/- was given to certain Senior Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers but in the same pay scale, it will not amount to arbitrariness or hostile discrimination as is being alleged. It is a valid classification. The object to be achieved is little too hazy but one thing is obvious that some credit is given to the persons who have more experience by virtue of their seniority. If the plea of the petitioners is to be accepted, this would be re- writing and converting the scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- to Rs. 1920-3200/- because every person on being appointed as Senior Assistant or Senior Scale Stenographer would claim the said scale in terms of start of the salary. The Court would refrain in doing so because impugned action does not tantamount to discrimination in terms of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution.” CWP No.7235 of 1996 [5] It is stated by counsel for the State that the judgment rendered in Tej Kaur's case (supra) has attained finality. In view of the ratio of law laid down in Tej Kaur's case (supra), the prayer made in the present writ petition cannot be accepted. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 30, 2010. JUDGE RC