IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: LPA No.40 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION : 18 February,2009 STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER .......APPELLANTS VERSUS PRITAM DAS & OTHERS ......RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: Ms. Ambika Luthra, A.A.G., Punjab for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondents. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The respondents were appointed as Well-Supervisors in the Tubewell Section of the Agriculture Department between 20-02-1970 and 01-03-1974. The post of Well-Supervisors and that of the upper subordinates of the PWD were equated subject to proper qualifications as prescribed for the post of upper subordinates vide letter of the Government dated 31-07-1978 and a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure P-1. This equation was maintained by the pay Revision Board of 1958, First Pay Commission of 1967 and Second Pay Commission of 1978. This is evident from the parity of pay scales between Well-Supervisors and LPA No.40 of 2003 -2- Overseers/Sectional Officers at different stages from 1928 to 1978 :- Pay scales of Basis qualification Well Overseers/ for both categories Supervisor Sos 1928 80-7-255 80-7-255 3 years Diploma in Mech. Engg. after Matric. 1957-58 100-10-200 100-10-200/ 10-300 10-300 1967-68 200-450 200-450 1978 570-1080 570-1080 The Sectional Officers of the PWD as well as the respondents- Well Supervisors represented to the State Government for fixation of their pay scale at Rs.700-1200 with a Selection Grade Rs.800-1400. While the State Government accepted the recommendation of the Sectional Officers, the pay scale of Well-Supervisors were not revised. Aggrieved with the same, the Well-Supervisors filed the writ petition, mainly on the ground that the same was due to an omission/clerical mistake in the Administrative Department. The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition but, however, restricted the arrears to the date of filing of the petition. The present L.P.A has been filed against the order of the learned Single Bench by the State of Punjab on the following grounds :- (i) That the technical nature of duties and responsibilities of Sectional Officers are different from Well Supervisors. (ii) That the post of Well-Supervisor and of Sectional Officer was never at par. Although these posts were drawing same salary till 1978. (iii) Revising the scales of Well Supervisors would cause Wide-Repercussion as there are similar categories who would also come forward with similar demands. LPA No.40 of 2003 -3- The petitioners had raised these very grounds before the learned Single Bench which were dealt with and rejected vide a detailed judgment. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having given our thoughtful consideration to the judgments, relied on by both sides, we do not find it appropriate to interfere in the judgment of learned Single Bench in the facts of the present case. From the facts enumerated, following admitted positions have been revealed :- a) The well supervisors are one of the oldest members of Agriculture Department Tubewell section. On the basis of educational and technical qualification, their pay scale in 1928 was kept at par with P.W.D (Sectional Officer). b) The first pay scale i.e. 1967-68 maintained this parity and gave the same pay scale (Rs.200-450) to the well supervisor and sectional officers. c) The second pay commission had also given the pay scale of Rs.570-1080 to the well supervisor and sectional officer but later on, the Government granted the pay scale of Rs.700-1200 to the Sectional Officers but the said grade was not granted to the Well Supervisor. d) The third pay commission granted the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 to the sectional officers, but the well supervisors were given the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 though the educational and technical qualification and nature of duties of both the posts are same. The educational and technical qualification and nature of duties of both the posts are same. We do not find any difference in the duties and responsibilities of both the posts. In fact, the nature of duties of both the posts is as follows :- 1. Installation of deep and shallow tubewells of farmers and other agencies. LPA No.40 of 2003 -4- 2. Advising the farmers regarding choice of pumps. 3. To give technical advice to the private Boaring Company regarding installation of standard tubewells. 4. Providing information regarding proper use of tubewells and to give advice for rectifying the tubewells which are lying defective. In fact, the Well Supervisor is responsible to complete the targets laid down by the Government in his area which falls in 2-3 districts. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, tried to rely on Annexure R-1 to show that the same are different. On a close perusal of the same, we find that there was actually no difference between the duties performed by either of the two posts. This fact also finds support from the document P-5 which are parawise comments submitted with regard to revision of pay scale and is signed by the Agriculture Engineer (Tubewells), Punjab, Chandigarh. This document has not been denied by the petitioners in the reply to the writ petition. Even if there is any truth in R-1, the fact remains that these two posts were treated as equal initially even at the time of revision of pay scale on a subsequent stage by Ist and 2nd Pay Commission. When they were treated un-equally, no reason was disclosed. Even the written statement does not speak of any substantial ground for not treating them equally at a later stage. The qualifications are similar. The duties are at par. There is no difference in the responsibility between the two posts. There is no ground forthcoming to show as to why the respondents were treated differently. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. J.P. Chaurasia, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 19 and State of Haryana vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, AIR 2002 Supreme Court, 2589. Although there LPA No.40 of 2003 -5- is no dispute with the proposition of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions that pay fixation is essentially an executive function and the Courts are not equipped to take upon itself the task of job evaluation, which is a complex exercise, the said judgments do not help the petitioners in the facts of the present case and in the light of the admitted factual position detailed above. There appears to be an apparent anomaly in the pay scale of the Well-Supervisors. In fact, the judgment in the case of State of U.P. (supra) strengthens our hands in such a situation and grants liberty to interfere in order to undo justice. The observations of the Apex Court reads as follows :- “ There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment, rendered in Union of India & Ors. vs. Dineshan K.K. reported in 2008(1) S.C.C. 586 while upholding the judgment of Guwahati High Court vide which the appellant in that case was re-designated from the post of Havaldar as Warrant Officer and the pay scale as admissible to his counterparts in the Central Reserve Police Force and the Border Security Force was granted held as follows :- “10. Initially, particularly in the early eighties, the said principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for equal LPA No.40 of 2003 -6- work had no mathematical application in every case of similar work. It has been observed that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. (Vide : Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. v. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors., 1992(2) SCT 301: (1993) Supp Association, 2002(3)( SCT 674: (2002)6 SCC 72. Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the Executive or the Legislature, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex-facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene.” The present case also clears the test, if tested, on the broad guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. In the facts of the present case as well as the material placed on record and the pleadings of the parties in support of their stand, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Single Bench and hold that the decision of the Government for refusing to LPA No.40 of 2003 -7- grant the similar pay scale to the Well-Supervisors as granted to their Sectional Officers was unfair and arbitrary. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE February 18, 2009 gurpreet