IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17617 of 1999 Date of decision: 9th August, 2010 Majid Khan … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the official- respondents to refix the salary of the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.5000-7850 per month, the scale which has been granted to respondent No.3, who was also discharging the same duties as were being done by the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that the maxim of ‘equal pay for equal work’ ought to be invoked in this case. The petitioner was employed as a Tabla Performer in the Department of Public Relations and Cultural Affairs, Haryana at a monthly fixed wages in the year 1982. Later-on a selection committee regularized appointment of the petitioner on 31st January, 1996 and he was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1400. It has been averred that before regular appointment of the petitioner, respondent No.3 was the only Tabla Performer in the department. His selection was through Subordinate Civil Writ Petition No.17617 of 1999 Services Selection Board and in the year 1982, he was placed in the pay- scale of Rs.525-900. The qualification prescribed, according to the petitioner, for the post of Tabla Performer was five years’ experience and knowledge of Hindi upto matric level. It is pleaded that both, petitioner and respondent No.3, were not matriculate. Respondent No.3 in May 1996 was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600, whereas the petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1400. After the revision of pay-scales, respondent No.3 was granted a pay-scale of Rs.5000-7850 and the petitioner was granted pay-scale of Rs.3050-4350. The petitioner had sent a representation (Annexure P-5) dated 12th July, 1999 claiming parity in the pay-scales. Respondent No.2, on 19th August, 1999, vide Annexure P-6, rejected the representation on the ground that the educational qualification as well as the mode of recruitment of respondent No.3 were different from that of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the same scale of pay. In the written statement filed on behalf of official respondents, it is stated that in the State of Haryana, at one time, Cultural Affairs Department and the Public Relations Department were two separate departments. The petitioner was recruited in the Cultural Affairs Department in the year 1985-86 at fixed monthly wages of Rs.800, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.1800/- with effect from 17th August, 1989. Whereas, respondent No.3 was appointed against a sanctioned post in the Public Relations Department in a regular pay-scale of Rs.160- 400, the scale which was revised to Rs.525-900 and later-on to Rs.1400- 2600 on 1st April, 1979 and 1st January, 1986 respectively. It is stated that since the pay-scales, to which initially the petitioner and respondent No.3 were appointed, were different, therefore, subsequently due to revision of pay-scales, they have been getting different revised pay-scales. The 2 Civil Writ Petition No.17617 of 1999 stance of the respondent-Department is that the Public Relations Department had sent a requisition to the Subordinate Services Selection Board on 10th December, 1980 and a Tabla Performer in the Department of Public Relations was required to have following qualifications: (i) Should know Tabla, Dholak and preferably Maridangan and other percussion; (ii) Should have sound knowledge of folk music; (iii) Adequate knowledge of Hindi; (iv) Working experience of three years with folk theatre company is important. It is further submitted that the duty of a Tabla Performer in the Public Relations Department was higher in status, therefore, he was drawing higher pay-scale since the creation of the post. A reference has been made to para 6 of the written statement, which reads as under: “6. That in reply to para 6 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the post of Tabla Performer sanctioned in the Public Relations Department, Haryana is higher in status and pay scales since its creation. The mode of recruitment for these posts is also different. The Rural Community Theatre Unit in which the post of Tabla Performer held by the Respondent No.3 is sanctioned organizes Theatre Workshops to educate the rural masses in the modern techniques of theatre whereas the duties of the post of Tabla Performer held by the petitioner are merely to play on Tabla during the cultural shows arranged by the Cultural Affairs Department, Haryana from time to time. It is further submitted that the qualifications, experience and duties of the post of Tabla Performer held by respondent No.3 are higher than those of the post of Tabla Performer sanctioned in the Cultural Affairs Department, Haryana, held by the petitioner. The position regarding status, pay scales, duties, responsibilities, qualifications and experience has already 3 Civil Writ Petition No.17617 of 1999 been explained in foregoing paras of this written statement. In view of the nature of duties, qualifications, experience etc. prescribed for both the posts, no discrimination in the grant of pay scale has been done to the petitioner.” I have heard counsel for the parties. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is performing the same functions as are being performed by respondent No.3. It is stated that the petitioner has also participated in Theatre Workshops and Rural Community Theatre Unit and is equally conversant in Dholak and Maridangan. Learned counsel has further stated that the petitioner and respondent No.3 have been interchanging their duties. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has stated that the arguments advanced before this Court have not been specifically pleaded in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since in the order rejecting his representation, it was only stated that the source through which the recruitment was made, was different, therefore, he has not made these averments. It has been held by the Courts that grant of pay-scales, prescription of educational qualifications and experience, all are in the domain of executive and it is for the expert bodies, like Pay Commission, to determine the pay-scales of the persons holding various posts. After the merger of Cultural Affairs Department with the Department of Public Relations, it is an admitted fact that both, the petitioner and respondent No.3, have been performing the duties of a Tabla Performer. Thus, in the same department, if the persons holding the same posts are granted different pay-scales, it is likely to cause heart- burning and affect efficiency of the employees. 4 Civil Writ Petition No.17617 of 1999 Accordingly, the case of the petitioner is hereby referred to the Pay Anomaly Committee, which, after going into various factors, will consider the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. With the observations made above, present writ petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 9, 2010 rps 5