IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11545 of 1989 Date of Decision: April 29, 2009 Manjeet Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Soil Conservation Department/F.C. Development, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioners, who were working as Agriculture Inspectors in the office of Chief Conservator of Soils, Punjab- respondent No. 2, have approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant them the pay scale of Rs. 320- 750 with effect from 1.11.1977 to 1.1.1978 with all consequential benefits including the benefit of re-fixation of pay. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos. 4 and 6 were originally appointed as Agriculture Inspectors in the Department of Agriculture. The other petitioners were appointed as Agriculture C.W.P. No. 11545 of 1989 Inspectors subsequently in the Department of Soil Conservation, which was one of the wing of the Agriculture Department. It was created by bifurcation of the Department of Agriculture into Agriculture and Soil Conservation and Engineering separately (P-1 & P-2). All employees including the petitioners who have been working in the Soil Conservation wing as on 15.12.1969 were allocated to the new department without obtaining any option from them and without keeping in view their seniority. It is claimed that from the inception of post of Agriculture Inspector, the petitioners are Agriculture Inspector for all intents and purposes performing the same duties in different fields of agriculture as Soil Conservation because Soil Conservation is one of the wing of the agriculture. The pay scales of Agriculture Inspector working in the Agriculture Department were revised from Rs. 250-450 to Rs. 320-750 with effect from 1.11.1977 (P-3). Likewise, the pay scales of Agriculture Inspector working in other Departments of Punjab Government were also revised. The benefit was extended to the Agriculture Inspectors in Animal Husbandry, vide notification dated 15.4.1986. The Agriculture Inspectors working in the Horticulture Department were also given the benefit of revised grade of Rs. 320-750 with effect from 1.11.1977. Similarly, the Agriculture Inspectors (Implements)/Field Inspectors were given the same pay scale from the same date. The grievance made by the petitioners is that their pay scale has been revised only from 1.1.1978 whereas the parity between the pay scale of Agriculture Inspectors, irrespective of the wing they are working, has been maintained uniformly. The aforesaid position emerges from the following table prepared by the petitioners:- 2 C.W.P. No. 11545 of 1989 Year Agri. Inspectors/ (Agri. Deptt.)/ Field Inspectors (Imp.) Agri. Inspectors (Soil Conservatio n Deptt.) Agri. Inspectors (Horticulture) / Horticulture Inspectors (Horticulture Deptt.) Agri. Inspectors/ Feed & Fodder Inspectors, Animal Husbandry Department. 1967 130-450 130-450 130-450 130-450 1.2.1968 250-450 250-450 250-450 250-450 1.11.1977 320-750 - 320-750 320-750 1.1.1978 700-1200 700-1200 700-1200 700-1200 1.1.1986 1640-2925 1640-2925 1640-2925 1640-2925 3. The petitioners have made various representations for grant of same benefit. A copy of the representation made on 23.1.1987 has been placed on record (P-4). On 27.5.1987, the Government refused to intervene and advised the Department to take up the matter with the 3rd Pay Commission (P-5) but all in vain. 4. In the written statement filed by the respondents the broad factual position has not been disputed. But the stand taken in para 8 is that the Department had recommended the case of the petitioners for giving them the pay scale of Rs. 320-750 with effect from 1.11.1977 to 31.12.1977. On the basis of communication sent by the Government for referring the matter to the 3rd Pay Commission, the Department made recommendation to the Anomalies Committee through the Government so that the grievance with regard to loss caused to the Agriculture Inspectors in the matter of pay fixation may be redressed. It has been asserted in the written statement filed on 18.4.1990 that the matter was then pending before the Anomalies Committee. However, in the replication filed by the petitioners it has 3 C.W.P. No. 11545 of 1989 been clarified that the Anomalies Committee did not feel necessary to modify the pay scale of various categories in the Soil Conservation and Engineering Wing. 5. Mr. M.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the pay scale of various Agriculture Inspectors working in various wings of Agriculture Department have been uniform since 1967 then there was no reason for the respondents to deny equivalent pay scale from the same date which have been granted to other Agriculture Inspectors. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of K.K. Mehta v. State of Punjab, 1983 (3) SLR 732. The aforesaid judgment deals with the case of Field Inspectors, which have parity of pay scale with the Agriculture Inspectors. 6. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has placed reliance on the averments made in para 8 of the written statement and has argued that once the Anomalies Committee has not accepted the recommendation of the Department then no higher pay scale could be granted to the petitioners. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, I am of the considered view that the grievance made by the petitioners deserves to be redressed. It has remained undisputed that the pay scale of Agriculture Inspectors in the Agriculture Department, Soil Conservation, Horticulture and Animal Husbandry, has continued to be same since 1967. It is pertinent to mention that all the Agriculture Inspectors were part of one Agriculture Department and Soil Conservation which was bifurcated on 15.12.1969. If the Agriculture 4 C.W.P. No. 11545 of 1989 Inspectors, who are now working in the Soil Conservation Wing were part of the Agriculture Wing at one time, it would be wholly unfair for the respondents to create a classification and grant the pay scale from a date different than the one granted to the Agriculture Inspectors working in the Agriculture Wing. Such a situation has also arisen before the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Purshottam Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1088, where recommendations of the Pay Commission were not made applicable to one class of employees. Speaking for the Bench, Chief Justice Sikri has observed as under in para 15:- “15. Mr. Dhebar contends that it was for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of reference. We are unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has made reference in respect of all Government employees or it has not. But if it has made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepts the recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned.” 8. According to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench one category of employees could not be subjected 5 C.W.P. No. 11545 of 1989 to hostile discrimination once recommendations have been made for all classes of employees. In the present case, Agriculture Inspectors have been given revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.11.1977, there is no rationale basis fixing different date of revision in the case of the petitioners i.e. 1.1.1978. Similar principles have been laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 565. The reliance of the petitioners on K.K. Mehta’s case (supra) is also meritorious and the observations made therein are fully applied to the facts of the present case. Therefore, I am of the view that by denying the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 320-750 to the petitioners with effect from 1.11.1977 is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and the same is, thus, unsustainable. 9. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition succeeds. The petitioners are held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 320-750 with effect from 1.11.1977 to 31.12.1977. it is appropriate to mention that the instant petition has been filed in the year 1989 when the matter was still under consideration of the Anomalies Committee. Eventually the same was rejected on 15.1.1990. Therefore, the petitioners are held entitled to fixation of their pay with all consequential benefits and arrears. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) April 29, 2009 JUDGE 6 C.W.P. No. 11545 of 1989 Pkapoor 7