IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2821/2008 Reserved on: 16.6.2010 Decided on:21.6. 2010 _____________________________________________ O.P. Mukhija. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Dairy Engineer in the Department of Animal Husbandry vide appointment letter dated 11.6.1975. He jointed his duties on 18.6.1975. Respondent-State has framed the rules in respect of post of Dairy Engineer under the Milk Supply Scheme vide notification Annexure A-3 dated 3.7.1972. The minimum essential qualification for filling up the post of Dairy Engineer by way of direct recruitment was degree in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Mechanical/Electrical Engineer from a recognized University or Institution with two years experience in handling dairy machinery both for dairy plant and chilling centres or diploma in Dairy Engineering from a recognized University/Institution or both. Respondent-State has framed the rules vide Annexure A-4 for filling up the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department on 9.8.1973. The pay scale prescribed as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules was 400- 1100. The pay scale of Dairy Engineer as per pay Annexure A-2 was also Rs. 400-1100. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that when the post of Dairy Engineer was created, the same was equated with the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. Precise case of the respondents is that petitioner is entitled to the pay scale, which has been paid to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical and Refrigeration) in the State of Punjab. 3. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to pay scale of Rs. 940-1850 with effect from 1.1.1978 and Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 at par with the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) working in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. He then argued that the qualifications of Dairy Engineer in the State of Himachal Pradesh are higher vis-à- vis State of Punjab for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical and Refrigeration). He lastly contended that the case of the petitioner as per Annexure A-18 was favourably recommended, however, despite that pay scale of the petitioner was not revised. 3 4. Mr. Vikas Rathore has strenuously argued that petitioner is not entitled to the pay scale asked for and there cannot be any departure from the pay scale granted to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical and Refrigeration) in the State of Punjab. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 6. Petitioner was appointed as Dairy Engineer on 11.6.1975 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-1100. Respondent-State took a decision to revise the pay scales of all the categories of employees with effect from 1.1.1978 vide notification dated 20.2.1980. The Dairy Engineers were granted the pay scale of Rs. 850-1700. The pay scale of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) working in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department was revised from Rs. 400-1100 to Rs. 940-1850. 7. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj has strenuously argued that at the time of creation of post of Dairy Engineer, the same was equated with the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) working in the Himachal Pradesh Public works Department for all intents and purposes. Petitioner had made a representation seeking parity with the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) working in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. His representation was turned down vide Annexure A-8 dated 23.4.1984. Petitioner has also assailed the validity of Annexure A-1 dated 20.6.1995. 8. It is evident from Annexure A-18 that the case of the petitioner was favourably recommended before the pay anomaly committee. It has been specifically mentioned therein that the pay scale of the post, i.e. Dairy Engineer from 1972 to 1977 was Rs. 4 400-1100, which was equivalent to that of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) working in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. It was also stated therein that the pay scale of Diary Engineer was revised to Rs. 850-1700 with effect from 1.1.1978 and Rs. 2100-3700 with effect from 1.1.1986. However, the pay scale of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) was revised from 1.1.1978 to Rs. 940-1800 and Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986. It was also mentioned therein that in other departments such as Public Works Department, the different Engineers work in different fields such as Civil, Mechanical or Electrical whereas in the Dairy Department, Dairy Engineer, in addition, has to undertake the work of repairs of refrigerator and Boiler etc. In totality, the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 was recommended to be given to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986. However, fact of the matter is that Finance Department did not agree with the proposal submitted by the Department and the pay scale was not revised to Rs. 940- 1850 and Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1978 and 1.1.1986, respectively. Once the department has itself equated the post of Dairy Engineer with Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department vide Annexure A-18, different stand could not be taken in the reply filed by the respondent-State. Petitioner, as noticed above, for all intents and purpose, stood equated with Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. Pay scale of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department stood revised from Rs. 400-1100 to 940-1850 with effect from 1.1.1978 and Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 5 1.1.1986. It is also evident that the post of Dairy Engineer was in the pay scale of Rs. 400-1100 at the time when the revision took place vide notification dated 20.3.1980 with effect from 1.1.1978. It is a clear case of arbitrariness on the part of respondent-State whereby pay scale of Rs. 940-1850 and Rs. 2200-4000 has been denied to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1978 and 1.1.1986. 9. Now, the Court will advert to the stand taken by the respondent that there cannot be any departure from the Punjab Pattern. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj has argued with vehemence that petitioner is entitled to the pay scale, which has been paid to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department and not the pay scale which has been paid to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical and Refrigeration) in the State of Punjab in the Department of Animal Husbandry. A bare perusal of Annexures A-3 and A-18 reveals that minimum educational qualification for filling up the post of Dairy Engineer in Animal Husbandry Department was degree in Mechanical/Electrical Engineer from a recognized University or Institution and about two years experience in handling dairy machinery both for dairy plant and chilling centres or diploma in Dairy Engineering from a recognized University/Institution or its equivalent. The minimum qualifications for filling up the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical and Refrigeration) in the State of Punjab are diploma in Electrical Engineer of three years duration or at least five years experience in handling electrical equipments. It is, thus, evident that the qualifications prescribed in the State of Himachal Pradesh are higher vis-à-vis State of Punjab for filling up the post of Diary 6 Engineer. It was incumbent upon the respondent-State to take appropriate decision at its own level after taking into consideration the recommendations made as per Annexure A-18 and essential qualifications and the duties being discharged by the petitioner being Dairy Engineer instead of mechanically releasing the pay scale given to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical and Refrigeration) in the State of Punjab working in Animal Husbandry Department. Consequently, Annexure A-1 dated 20.6.1995 is declared bad in law since the same has been rejected on the ground that there cannot be any departure from the Punjab pattern. 10. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus P.D. Attri and others, (1999) 3 SCC 217 have held that each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of other State or if it had adopted the rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. Their Lordships have held as under: 5. The case of the respondents is not based on any Constitutional or any other legal provisions when they claim parity with the posts similarly designated in the Punjab & Haryana High court and their pay-scales from the same date. They do not allege any violation of any Constitutional provision or any other provision of law. They say it is so because of "accepts policy and common practice" which according to them are undisputed. We do not think we can import such vague principles while interpreting the provisions of law. India is a union of States. Each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the 7 Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other State or if it had adopted the same rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. The question then arises before us is if the State of Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab & Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the employees in the States of Punjab & Haryana. The answer has to be in negative. No argument is needed for that as anyone having basic knowledge of the Constitution would not argue otherwise, True, the State as per "policy and practice' had been adopting the same pay-scales for the employees of the High court as sanctioned from time to time for the employees of the Punjab & Haryana High court and it may even now follow to grant pay-scales but is certainly not bound to follow. No law commands it to do so. 11. Respondents have wrongly equated the post held by the petitioner, i.e. Dairy Engineer with the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical and Refrigeration) serving in the State of Punjab in Animal Husbandry Department. It is true that it is for the employer to decide what pay is to be paid to a particular employee. However, it is also equally settled that if pay fixation is unreasonable, unjust and in prejudice to a section of employees and the decision has been taken in ignorance of material facts, Courts can interferer. 12. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tube wells Corporation and others Versus G.S. Uppal and others, (2008) 7 SCC 375 have held as under: 8 “16. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the 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 the 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. [see K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406].” 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove and the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. Order Annexure A-1 dated 20.6.1995 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to the pay scale of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Himachal Pradesh Pubic Works Department, i.e. Rs. 940-1850 with effect from 1.1.1978 and Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.6. 2010 *awasthi*