IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 4562 of 2008. Decided on: 26.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Rattan Chand … Petitioner. Versus H.P.State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner. : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the H.P. Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation Limited vide memorandum dated 22.12.1976 on daily wages basis. His services were regularized as Peon on 10.1.1980. He was promoted to the post of Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 590-830 with effect from 1.4.1990 on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 29.3.1990. The Board of Directors of Himachal Pradesh State Electronics Development Corporation in its meeting held on 31.3.1997 had decided to de-link T.V. Factory staff from PUN Wire wage pattern with effect from 1.4.1992. The Clerks were put in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 vide Annexures A-7 and A-8 and non-matriculate Clerks were put in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1350. The petitioner made representation 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 for release of pay scale of Rs. 950-1800. He has also assailed his fixation in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1350 instead of Rs 950-1800. Mr. D.P. Gupta has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to be put in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 on the basis of Annexures A-7 and A-8. He then contended that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Clerk on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 29.3.1990. His promotion was subject to the condition that he shall have to learn type in Hindi and English at the speed of thirty words per minute failing which he could be reverted to the post of Peon. Mr. Praneet Gupta has strenuously argued that the petitioner was only entitled to pay scale of Rs. 750-1350 being non- matriculate as per Annexure R-2 dated 1.5.1997. He then contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee lost sight of qualification of the petitioner at the time of recommendation of his case for promotion to the post of Clerk. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. The petitioner was promoted on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 29.3.1990. He was required to learn typing in Hindi and English as per office order dated 31.3.1990 within a period of six months at the speed of thirty words per minute. He was not reverted from the post of Clerk. In other words, he had acquired proficiency in typing. He was promoted with effect from 1.4.1990. It cannot be presumed that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not aware of the 3 educational qualification of the petitioner at the time his name was recommended for promotion to the post of Clerk. The Departmental Promotion Committee in its wisdom, it appears had relaxed the educational qualification while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Clerk. He is discharging the same duties which are being discharged by the Matriculate Clerks. Mr. Praneet Gupta has not placed any tangible evidence on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner is not discharging same or similar duties which are being discharged by his colleagues who are Matriculates. Since the petitioner is discharging same or similar duties which are being discharged by the Matriculate Clerks, he is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” as well. In these circumstances, the plea raised by Mr. Praneet Gupta that the Departmental Promotion Committee has over looked the qualification of the petitioner cannot be accepted at this belated stage. He is working as Clerk since 1.4.1990 till date. The persons appointed by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion are placed in one group/cadre. The action of the respondent of denying the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 after the issuance of Annexures A-7 and A-8 is declared arbitrary. The petitioner has been promoted on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. He could not be denied the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 merely on the ground that he was non-matriculate. The plea raised by Mr. Praneet Gupta that he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 750-1350 as per Annexure R-2 merits rejection in view of the 4 observations made hereinabove. The respondent cannot be permitted to have two separate pay scales for one post i.e. Clerk. It is also settled law that there can be difference in the pay scales on the basis of qualification in the same cadre in exceptional case. However, it is only in very specialized cadres, like; Assistant Engineers/ Executive Engineers where the persons have to discharge technical/onerous duties. A person appointed as Executive Engineer holding B.E. degree may be better equipped to discharge onerous duties vis-à-vis the person holding diploma. However, in the present case, the post is ministerial and all the Clerks are discharging the same duties. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa and others versus State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406 have held that the Courts can interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. Their Lordships have held as under: “He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the 5 scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.” Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to grant the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 along with arrears with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from due date within a period of eight weeks. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 26, 2009. (cr)