IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 6082 of 2008. Reserved on: 02.08.2011. Decided on: 26.08.2011. _______________________________________________ Kurmo Devi and others. … Petitioners. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioners are working as Project Officers in the Directorate of Adult Education, Himachal Pradesh. The Project Officers were given the pay-scale of ` 1640-2925 instead of ` 2400-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and ` 2850- 4375 with effect from 18.2.1989 on Punjab pattern. The pay 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - scale of ` 1640-2925 was revised by the State of H.P vide notification dated 16.3.1996 to ` 2000-3500. The Project Officers filed CWP No.586 of 1984 in this Court seeking the pay scale of ` 1200-1700 from due date. CWP No.586 of 1984 was transferred to the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal” for convenience sake), which was assigned T.A. No.662 of 1986. The same was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 4.6.1990. The respondents were directed to grant to the petitioners the pay scale of ` 1200-1700 with effect from 1.4.1981. The petitioners also filed O.A. No.1254 of 1991 claiming the benefit of judgment rendered in T.A. No.662 of 1986, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal. The Original Application itself was directed to be treated as representation to the Secretary, Education. The representation was rejected by the Secretary, Education on 8.12.1995. It will be pertinent to state at this stage that against the judgment dated 6.4.1990 passed by the learned Tribunal in T.A. No.662 of 1986, the State has filed two Civil Appeals bearing No.1709 and 1710 of 1997, which were decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.2.1997. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the petitioners will be entitled to the pay-scale of ` 1200-1700 with effect from 1.5.1984 instead of 1.4.1981. - 3 - The petitioners again filed O.A. No.375 of 1997 before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Same was allowed by the learned Tribunal on 5.5.1997 after noting the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1709 and 1710 of 1997 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.24452-24453 of 1995, decided on 28.2.1997. The petitioners were also held entitled to the pay- scale of ` 1200-1700, later on revised to ` 2000-3500 with effect from 1.5.1984. 2. Petitioner No.1, Hakam Singh died during the pendency of this petition and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 13.12.2010. 3. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate appearing vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the petitioners have not been paid the pay scale as per the judgment of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. His contention is that his clients are entitled to the pay scale of ` 2400-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and ` 2850-4375 with effect from 18.2.1989 on the basis of Annexure A-6, dated 17.2.1989. He also contended that the case of the petitioners was duly recommended by the Director, Adult Education, Himachal Pradesh vide Annexure A-9, dated 2.2.1999. - 4 - 4. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioners are not entitled to the pay scale on Punjab pattern. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The post of Project Officer was created in the State of Himachal Pradesh in 1975. In Punjab, the post of Project Officer was created in 1981. Thus, the Project Officers, who were appointed between 1975 to 1981, could not get the benefits of pay scale on Punjab pattern with effect from the anterior date. In Punjab, pay-scale paid to the Project Officers in 1989 was ` 1200-1700 as is evident from notification dated 17.2.1989, i.e. Annexure A-6. This pay scale has been revised by the State of Himachal Pradesh to ` 2000-3500 as on 16.3.1996. In Punjab, the pay scale of ` 1200-1700 has been revised to ` 2400-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and ` 2850-4375 with effect from 18.2.1989. It will be apt at this stage to take note of Annexure A-9, dated 2.2.1999. The text of letter dated 2.2.1999 (Annexure A-9), addressed by the Director of Adult Education to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, reads thus:- “ …… Kindly refer to your letter No.EDN-C- B(7)-6/98 dated 2.12.1998 and subsequent - 5 - reminder of dated 19.12.98, 8.1.99 and 16.1.1999 on the same subject. In this matter, it is submitted that the case of pay scale has been adjudicated upon by the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 1995 and subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order that the benefit of pay scale of Rs.1200-1700 which has been revised to 2000- 3500 as per notification dated 16.3.1996 be made available to the respondents w.e.f. 1.5.1984. Now the representationist feeling dissatisfied with the judgment intend to contradict the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the plea that proper record was not produced in the Hon’ble Supreme Court which lead to this judgment. It is also pertinent to point out here that the Punjab Govt. vide its notification dated 14.2.1989 has equated the Project Officers with Distt. Education Officers and Distt. Pry. Edu. Officers and has granted the pay scale of 2400-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and 2850-4375. It will be in the fitness of things to allow this scale to Project Officers (Adult Edu.) in H.P. too as we do follow the pay scale on Punjab pattern with respect to the salary of an employees. Now since the Literacy (PLC and Continuing Education) is being monitored & implemented through the staff of Adult Education deptt, the demand for the scale seems justified.” 7. Despite the case of the petitioners having been recommended by the Director of Adult Education on 2.2.1999, the plea of the petitioners has been turned down as is evident from Annexure A-10, dated 25.5.1999. It was incumbent upon the respondent-State to pay all the employees, who - 6 - were appointed as Project Officers, the pay scale of ` 1200- 1700 with effect from 1.5.1984. 8. It is for the employer to frame rules governing the revision of pay scales taking into consideration the mode of recruitment, educational qualifications, nature of duties etc. The Courts exercise limited judicial review in these matters until and unless the same are shown to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, so far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, it follows the Punjab pattern for the revision of pay scales periodically. The post of Project Officer was created in the State of Himachal Pradesh in 1975 and that is why it was carrying different pay scale. The post of Project Officer was created in the State of Punjab in 1981 in the pay scale of ` 1200-1700. It is why their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have granted the pay scale of ` 1200-1700 to the Project Officers from 1.5.1984 after the creation of the post of Project Officer in the State of Punjab and not from the anterior date, as prayed for by the Project Officers in the earlier litigation, referred to above. The petitioners and similarly situate persons have been granted the pay scale of ` 1200-1700 as per the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.375 of 1997. The pay scale of ` 1200-1700, as noticed above, has been revised by the State of Punjab to ` 2400-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 - 7 - and ` 2850-4375 with effect from 18.2.1989. These pay scales have not been paid to the petitioners. Once a conscious policy decision has been taken by the State Government to follow the Punjab pattern for revision of pay scales, the same is required to be applied uniformly to all the employees existing in the corresponding category in the State of Punjab. Now, it is apparent that the anomaly has arisen so far as the post of Project Officers is concerned since they have not been paid the pay scale at par with their counter parts in the State of Punjab. This is a case of invidious discrimination. One group of the employees cannot be discriminated against by not granting them the pay scale which the corresponding group of employees has been paid in the State of Punjab at the time of revision of the pay scales. 9. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 1221 have held that apart from being the dominant employer, the Government is also expected to be a model employer. It has, therefore, to follow certain basic principles in fixing the pay scales of various posts and cadres in the Government service by taking into consideration the degree of skill, strain of work, experience involved, training required, responsibility undertaken, mental and physical requirements disagreeableness of the task, hazard attendant - 8 - on work and fatigue involved. The method of recruitment, the level at which the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational and technical qualification prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the public, avenues of promotion available and horizontal and vertical relativity with other jobs in the same service or outside are also relevant factors. Their Lordships have further held that as far as possible the needs of a family unit have to be borne in mind in fixing the wage scales and in these days of galloping inflation, care should also be taken to see that what is fixed today as an adequate pay scale does not become inadequate within a short period by providing an automatic mechanism for the modification of the pay scale. The respondent-State has not placed any material on record to establish that the duties performed by the petitioners and their counter-parts in the State of Punjab are different. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under (paras 5, 6 and 7):- “In addition to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', the pay structure of the employees of the Government should reflect many other social values, Apart from being the dominant employer, the Government is also expected to be a model employer. It has, therefore, to follow certain basic principles in fixing the pay scales of various posts and cadres - 9 - in the Government service. The degree of skill, strain of work, experience involved, training required, responsibility undertaken, mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness of the task, hazard attendant on work and fatigue involved are, according to the Third Pay Commission, some of the relevant factors which should be taken into consideration in fixing pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level at which the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational and technical qualifications prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the public, avenues of promotion available and horizontal and vertical relativity with other jobs in the same service or outside are also relevant factors. At the same time while fixing the pay scales, the paying capacity of the Government, the total financial burden which has to be borne by the general public, the disparity between the incomes of the Government employees and the incomes of those who are not in Government service and the net amount available for Government at the current taxation level, which appears to be very high when compared with other countries in the world for developmental purposes after paying the salaries and allowances to the Government servants have also to be borne in mind. These are, however, not exhaustive of the various matters which should be considered while fixing the pay scales. There may be many others including geographical considerations. - 10 - Above all, it should be noted that the work of a Pay Commission does not really mean an increase of Rs. 100/- here or recommending an additional allowance of Rs. 50/- there. It does not also mean a mere reduction of the number of pay scales or an attempt at the reduction of the gap between the highest pay scale and the lowest pay scale. It is a big exercise in gearing up the national economy to secure the highest good to the millions of our countrymen. In an egalitarian society based on planned economy it is imperative that there should be an evolution and implementation of a scientific national policy of incomes, wages and prices which would be applicable not merely to Government services but also to the other sectors of the national economy. As far as possible the needs of a family unit have to be borne in mind in fixing the wage scales. The needs are not static. They include adequate nutrition, medical facilities, clothing, housing, education, cultural activities etc. Any provision made while fixing the pay scales for the development of a society of healthy and well educated children irrespective of the economic position of the parents is only an investment and not just an item of expenditure. In these days of galloping inflation care should also be taken to see that what is fixed today as an adequate pay scale does not become inadequate within a short period by providing an automatic mechanism for the modification of the pay scale.” 10. Accordingly, it was not open to the respondent- State to say that only the petitioners have been paid the pay- scale of ` 1200-1700 as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme - 11 - Court and this scale was not released to the posts of District Adult Education Officers/Project Officers. So far as the petitioners and similarly situate person are concerned, the State should have avoided multiplicity of litigation to save the State exchequer as well as time. 11. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the pay scale of ` 2400-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and ` 2850- 4375 with effect from 18.2.1989 and all the corresponding revisions which have taken place in the State of Punjab so far as the category of Project Officers is concerned, within a period of 12 weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioners. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. August 26, 2011. (sck).