R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 Date of Decision:28.07.2010 Haryana State through Secretary and others .....Appellants Vs. Manohar Lal Grover .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. K.C. Bhatia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. None for the respondent. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 16.2.1990 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby he set aside the judgment/ decree dated 4.10.1989 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Gurgaon and decreed the suit. The factual matrix is that the plaintiff had joined as a Clerk in the PWD (B&R) on 3.1.1972 and was confirmed as such with effect from 24.2.1978. He qualified the test of Steno Typist and was promoted as such with effect from 5.7.1975. He was also confirmed in the same capacity with effect from 5.7.1975 vide order dated 16.7.1981. He has been performing the duties on the higher post and rank as Stenographer in the Office of Superintending Engineer, Gurgaon from 17.11.1976 to 10.8.1981 and from R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -2- 18.2.1982 till date. Although, the plaintiff was promoted as Steno Typist, yet he has been working as Stenographer on the pay of Steno Typist in the Office of Superintending Engineer, Gurgaon. He has not been paid the salary of Stenographer despite several representations dated 17.11.1976, 25.10.1978, 11.9.1980, 25.2.1981 and 18.2.1982. On these allegations, the suit has been filed for declaration to the effect that he is entitled for pay and all emoluments as also seniority as Stenographer with effect from 17.11.1976. The defendants in their joint written statement, have inter-alia pleaded that the plaintiff had never worked as Stenographer in the Office of Superintending Engineer, Gurgaon and that in fact, he is working as Steno Typist in the Circle Office. The duties of Stenographer and Steno Typist practically being the same, he is not entitled to claim enhanced salary and seniority as Stenographer. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff has been working as a Senior Stenographer for any time? If so, when and to what effect? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be promoted as stenographer? If so, from when and to what effect? 3. Whether the plaintiff would be entitled to pay and allowances and seniority as stenographer? If so, since when and to what effect? 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from? R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -3- 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? 6. Whether the suit is pre-mature? 7. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice u/s 80 CPC? 8. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? 9. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed by the acts and conduct of the plaintiff? 10. Relief. After examining the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the plaintiff went up in appeal, which was accepted by the Court of learned District Judge, Gurgaon. Being dissatisfied therewith, the defendants have preferred this appeal. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have heard the learned State Counsel appearing for the appellants, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. K.C. Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana on behalf of the appellants- defendants submitted with a good deal of force that the plaintiff- respondent while working as Steno Typist in the Office of XEN, PWD (B&R), Gurgaon was shifted to the Office of Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R), Gurgaon Circle. He was working R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -4- in the said office as Stenographer and shifted to the Office of XEN, PWD (B&R), Gurgaon on temporary basis in the public interest. There being no vacancy of stenographer in the aforesaid office, the plaintiff- respondent is not entitled to claim the emoluments of Stenographer for the period, he worked there. The concept of `Equal Pay for Equal Work' is not applicable to his case as the duties of the Steno Typist and Stenographer are identical in nature and as such, the question of discrimination in the matter of pay does not arise. He further punctuated that assuming that the findings returned by the learned District Judge are correct, nonetheless, the plaintiff is not entitled to any emoluments beyond the period of three years and two months, being a time barred claim. These contentions merit rejection for the discussion to follow hereunder. It is in the evidence of DW1 Babu Lal, Senior Accounts Officer, PWD (B&R), Gurgaon that as per the personal file of the plaintiff, he had worked as Stenographer in the Office of Superintending Engineer from 17.11.1976 to 10.8.1981 and 18.2.1982 to 5.10.1987 and that the ACRs of the plaintiff had been written by the Superintending Engineer during this period. However, by taking a somer-sault, he deposed that these ACRs were written by the XEN. Thus, it is own evidence of the defendants- appellants that the plaintiff- respondent has worked as Stenographer in the said office during the stated period. The operative part of Ex.DW1/C admitted by DW1 Manohar Lal Grover in his cross-examination reads as under: “The official has stated that he (referring to the plaintiff) is working as stenographer in Circle Office since 17.11.1976 R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -5- but the grade of stenotypist is being paid to me instead of the grade of stenographer i.e. Rs.160-10-280-15-400. The application of the above official has been scrutinised and the following is submitted:- 1. That he is a regular Clerk from the S.S.S. Board. 2. He was given promotion on adhoc basis as steno typist on 5.7.1975 i.e. Rs.25/- as special pay was given to the official in addition to the scale of clerk. As per Govt. Circular regarding giving promotions, copy received vide E.I.C. Haryana No.736/EII dated 14.1.76 chain 181/3 of case E-28(P.B.) an official who possess 8 years experience in the post of Steno typist can be given promotion as Stenographer and official having less experience than 8 years cannot be given promotion. The official is working as steno typist (adhoc) since July, 1975 and has not yet completed requisite 8 years experience for the post of steno typist according to the government instructions. It will not be out of place to mention here that the grade of pay of Stenographer is Rs.160-10-280/15-400 and the scale of Steno typist is of Rs.110-4-130/5-160/5-225 plus Rs.25/- as special pay i.e. he is getting at present the following basic pay. Pay Rs. 160/- Spl. Pay Rs. 25/- -------- 185/- -------- In case the official is given promotion as steno-grapher, he will R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -6- be allowed the scale of Rs.160-10-280/15-400 and since he is working as steno typist on adhoc basis and he claims for giving the grade of a steno-grapher being that he is discharging the duties of steno grapher in Circle Office, there is no harm if he is promoted as Steno grapher in the grade of Rs.160-10- 280/15-400 with the starting pay of Rs.160/- as he is originally a regular clerk. It may however be submitted that this office has already sent requisition for the post of steno-grapher to the S.S.S. Board.” It is cyrstal clear from this office note that the scale of Stenographer is higher than that of Steno typist. Thus, in this behalf, Mr. Bhatia's argument is nullified. In Tirath Raj, H.P.S.E.B Ridge (E) Sub Division and others v. H.P. State Electricity Board and others, 1989(4) Services Law Reporter 360, it has been observed as under:- “An attempt was made to suggest that the daily rated workmen, like the petitioners, were like casual employees in the matter of certain service conditions. The affidavit had been filed, as directed by this Court, to place on record the terms and conditions concerning the appointment of work-charged and daily-rated workmen and the control being exercised by the State on the respondent- Board. These averments do not detract from the fact that the employees like the petitioners, who were deployed as daily-rated employees, were required to perform the duties and function of clerical nature like the Lower Division Clerks, Meter Ledger Clerks, Meter Readers. That R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -7- too, for varying periods extending, in some cases, to more than five years. The respondent- Board has been authorising its field officers, from time to time, to employ clerks on daily wages. This is clear from various orders collectively filed as Annexure `K' to the amended writ petition. The field officers had given certificates to the petitioners, some of which have been filed as annexures P-1 to P-37, showing that the petitioners, who were deployed as T-Mates on daily wages, were performing the duties of preparation of bills, maintenance of consumer accounts, Meter Ledger Clerks and the like. The evidence brought on the record of this writ petition, therefore, leaves no doubt in our mind that the petitioners have been required to perform clerical duties though they were deployed as T-Mates on daily wages. Accordingly, the respondent- Board is liable to pay to the petitioners the wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of a regularly employed clerk, but without any increments, for the period for which they have been required to perform the duties of a clerical nature. The petitioners will be entitled to the corresponding dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, if any, payable thereon. Whatever other benefits which are being enjoyed by them as of today shall be continued to be extended to them.” It can be reasonably and legitimately culled out from these observations and the doctrine of `Equal Pay for Equal Work” has to be R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -8- given recognition. In the present one, as is borne out from the above discussed evidence, the plaintiff- respondent was performing and discharging the duties of Stenographer though he had been appointed and posted against the post of Steno Typist. If the work of Stenographer was being taken from him, how he can be deprived of the emoluments to which the Stenographer is entitled in the scale of Rs. 160-10-280/15-400 in view of the doctrine of `Equal Pay for Equal work'. Furthermore, in the grounds of appeal too, it has been mentioned that “the official (referring to the plaintiff- respondent) was working in the Office of Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R) as Stenographer and was shifted to the Office of XEN, PWD (B&R), Gurgaon on temporary basis in public interest. It is thus clear and unambiguous that the plaintiff- respondent in fact had been working or discharging the duties of a Stenographer. The other limb of the arguments raised by Mr. Bhatia is that if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the plaintiff- respondent had been working as Stenographer during the period in question, he is not entitled to get the emoluments in the scale of Stenographer beyond the period of three years and two months as his claim in relation to the remaining period is barred by limitation. This contention has no legs to stand upon. It is manifestly clear from Ex.DW1/C reproduced hereinbefore in verbatim that the plaintiff- respondent had made numerous representations from time to time in the terms that he has been working as Stenographer in the Circle Office since 17.11.1976, but the grade of Steno Typist is being paid to him instead of the grade of Stenographer, i.e. Rs.160- 10-280/15-400. In this document, it has been mentioned that this R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -9- application was made by the plaintiff- respondent on 25.10.1978. In paragraph No.4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that “as per rules for the promotion of Steno-grapher published in the year 1961, the plaintiff was to be given promotion of the Steno-grapher w.e.f. the date the plaintiff is working with the defendant No.3 with all benefits of pay and emoluments and seniority of Steno-grapher, but the defendant No.3 never did so in-spite of written request and oral requests made by the plaintiff on 25.10.78, 11.9.80 and 25.2.1981.” In the counter paragraph in the written statement, it has been averred that the representations of the plaintiff made on 25.10.1978, 11.9.1980 and 25.2.1981 were not considered as such. In paragraph No.3 of the plaint, it has been averred that “the plaintiff has been performing the duties on the higher rank and responsibility as the plaintiff has been working with defendant No.3 with effect from 17.11.1976 to 10.8.1981 and from 18.2.1982 onwards as a Stenographer as there is no post of the Steno Typist in the Office of defendant No.3.” However, in the counter paragraph No.4 in the written statement, it has been asserted that “the plaintiff never worked as Stenographer.” But this plea is falsified by own evidence of the defendants referred to hereinbefore. There is recurring cause for the plaintiff to claim the emoluments as Stenographer. So, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants- appellants to contend that the claim of the plaintiff- respondent is barred by limitation except the period of three years and two months. In Y.K. Mehta and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1970, it has been held as under:_ “The principle of “equal pay for equal work”, if not given effect to in the case of one set of Government servants holding R.S.A. No.1078 of 1990 -10- same or similar posts, possessing same qualifications and doing the same kind of work, as another set of Government servants, it would be discriminatory and violative, of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” It can be culled out from these observations that if equal pay for equal work is withheld from a government servant, it would be violative of the afore-mentioned articles of the Constitution. So, on the basis of the Doctrine of equal pay for equal work, the plaintiff- respondent is entitled to claim pay in the scale of Stenographer for the period he worked as such. As a sequel of the above discussion, the findings returned by the learned lower appellate court warrant no interference and are sequelly affirmed. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Of course, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. July 28, 2010 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No