IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 6043 of 2010-G Date of Decision : November 9 , 2011 Ram Prakash Moghta Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. Advocate General. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) It cannot be disputed that there are posts of Research Officer (RO) in different departments of the State. Such of these departments, the preliminary pay scales and qualifications for the said post, in a tabular form are referred as under:- Sr. No Name of Department Qualification Duties and Responsibilities Pay 1986 Scale. 1994 1996 1 Economic & Statistics Masters Degree in Statistics/ Maths/ The Post Exists in Punjab: Collection, Compilation & 2000- 3500 2410- 4000 w.e.f. 1.1.86 7880- 11660 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Economics/ Commerce interpretation of Statistical data 2 HPPWD (Material Testing Laboratory B.Sc. in Physics/ Chemistry/ Maths The Post Exists in Punjab:- Testing of Material for the construction of buildings by HPPWD like steel, Sand, Soil, Cement, Lime, etc. 2000- 3500 2000- 3500 6400- 10640 3 Town and Country Planning Department Master Degree in Statistics/ Maths/ Economics/ Sociology/ Geography The Post does not Exists in Punjab:- Collection, Compilation and interpretation of Statistical data 2000- 3500 2000- 3500 6400- 10640 4 HIPA Graduate with Economics/ Maths The Post does not Exists in Punjab. Collection, Compilation and interpretation of Statistical data 2000- 3500 2410 4000 w.e.f. 1.1.86 7880- 11660 5 Revenue Department (Land Records) Graduate with Economics/ Maths The Post does not Exists in Punjab. Collection, Compilation and interpretation of Statistical data. 2000- 3500 2410- 4000 w.e.f. 1.1.86 7880- 11660 2. Petitioner was promoted as a Research Officer in the department of Town and Country Planning some time in the year 1986. He was possessing higher qualification than his counter part in the other departments of the State. Petitioner claimed parity in pay scale with such similarly situated incumbents, which however was denied to him by the State. As such, he was constrained to approach the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. His petition (O.A. No. 2344 of 1998) was dismissed on 4.7.2005 but was eventually allowed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 21.10.2009, passed in CWP No. 68 of 2006 3 titled as Ram Parkash Moghta Versus State of H.P. and another. It is not in dispute that the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court has attained finality. This Court specifically observed that denial on part of the State in equating the post of Research Officer was unjustified. As such, petition was disposed off with the following directions:- “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the State Government should be directed to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of not less than three officers not below the rank of Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who shall take into consideration the various factors involved, relating to the grant of parity of pay scales and shall thereafter decide the question whether the post of Research Officer in the Town and Country Planning Department should be equated to that of Research Officer in the HPPWD or any other department. The Committee after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner shall pass a reasoned order. We direct the State to constitute the Committee within one month of the receipt of this order and the Committee shall decide this question within three months of its constitution. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. No order as to costs.” 3. It is not in dispute that pursuant thereto a Committee was constituted which made its recommendations on 13.4.2010 (Annexure PB). Significantly Committee was headed by the Addl. Chief Secretary (TCP) to the Government 4 of Himachal Pradesh. The other members of the Committee were the Principal Secretary (PWD), Principal Secretary (Finance) and Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. This Committee, after considering various factors such as nature of the job: educational qualification: duties required to be performed, and other attending circumstances, came to the conclusion that petitioner’s post cannot be equated with equivalent post in the Department of HPPWD but however the same could be equated with an equal post in the departments of TCP and E & S. It was so recorded accordingly. But however, Committee was of the view that pecuniary benefits be granted prospectively for the reason that it would entail large financial liability on the state exchequer. Also it would invite parallel demands from other similarly situated persons. In this regard, extraction of relevant portion of the report would be beneficial:- “12. The Committee also considered the view that granting of pay scale retrospectively at this stage will add large financial liabilities on the State Exchequer and invite parallel competing demand from other similarly situated employees. 13. However given the fact that the RO’s in different departments including E&S, Planning, HIPA and Land Record etc. carry equal scales, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the 5 applicant for RO’s post in TCP to be equated with that in other departments, except for PWD, from a prospective effect. This equation would not however be relevant to the RO’s post in PWD, which has different nature of duties and different qualification that of RO in TCP. Thus, the Committee feels that for purposes of equating RO’s post of TCP, with other departments, equation with Planning, E&S department etc. should have a prospective effect and the higher scale to be granted should also be considered from a prospective date.” 4. It cannot be disputed that such recommendations have been accepted by the State. It is also evident from notification dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure P-15) whereby petitioner has been accorded higher pay scale but with prospective effect. 5. Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of parity of pay scale w.e.f. 1986, on the ground that it would entail financial liability on the State exchequer is contrary to and in violation of settled preposition of law and principles laid down by the Apex Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others versus G. S. Uppal and others, (2008) 7 SCC 375; Gopal Krishna Sharma and others versus State of Rajasthan and others, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 375; State of Karnataka and another versus 6 Karnataka State Patels Sangha and another, (2007) 4 SCC 207; and State of Mizoram and another versus Mizoram Engineering Service Association and another, (2004) 6 SCC 218. 6. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned Dy. Advocate General on the other hand has vehemently supported the decision taken by the State by referring to the minutes of the committee. 7. According to the petitioner he had raised his grievance way back in the year 1986 itself when he was promoted as a Research Officer. This fact is however not evident from the record. But the fact of the matter is that petitioner did approach the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal as early as 1998. Respondents did not take any action and as such petitioner was constrained to litigate. As a Welfare State, respondents were duty bound to look into genuine grievances of its employees and take appropriate action, which in the instant case it failed to do so. It was only when this Court directed the State to look into the petitioner’s grievance, the State constituted a Committee which made certain recommendations which were also accepted in principal by the Government, noticeably Committee comprised of very senior level officers of the State. Petitioner’s grievance was found to be genuine. His post, for the purposes of parity in 7 pay scale was found to be equivalent with the corresponding posts in departments of Planning and E & S. Financial benefits with retrospective effect were denied because petitioner was not entitled to the same but for the reason that it would entail huge financial liability. 8. In Gopal Krishna Sharma and others versus State of Rajasthan and others, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 375 Apex Court held that heavy burden on an employer (university) cannot be a ground to deny to the employer what is due to them in law. 9. The Apex Court in All India Regional Rural Bank Officers Federation and others versus Govt. of India and others, (2002) 3 SCC 554 has held that legitimate claim of an employee cannot be defeated on the ground of financial hardship. It held that the financial capacity of the Government cannot be pleaded as a ground for non-implementation of the directions of the Court inasmuch as even in the matter of determination of the pay scale of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks and maintenance of parity with their counterparts, serving under the sponsorer commercial banks. Justice Obul Reddi had not accepted the said plea and that award reached its finality. 10. In State of Mizoram and another versus Mizoram Engineering Service Association and another, (2004) 6 SCC 218, the Apex Court held that:- 8 “7. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that if the scale of Rs. 5900-6700 is to be allowed to the Chief Engineers, the State Government will have to allow the same scale to other heads of departments in the service of the State Government which will be a heavy burden on the financial resources of the State Government and for that reason we should restrict the scale for post of Chief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer to Rs. 4500-5700 and Rs. 4100-5300 respectively. In our view this is hardly any ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court.” 11. In Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others versus G. S. Uppal and others, (2008) 7 SCC 375, the Apex Court held that it cannot be said that the Corporation is financially sound insofar as granting of revised pay scales to other employees is concerned, but finds financial constraints only when it comes to dealing with the respondents who are similarly placed in the same category. 12. As such, claim made by the petitioner in this petition needs to be partly allowed. Petitioner shall be entitled to pay scale, payable to an employee holding an equivalent post in the Departments of Planning and E & S, from the date on which he just filed petition before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Petitioner shall also be entitled to all revisions in pay scale from such date. Respondents shall 9 take all consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, failing which, then thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s). 13. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 9 , 2011 (PK)