IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 2709/2008 Decided on:28.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Damyanti Jairath. …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. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). On the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, selection grade of Rs. 680-1120 was allowed to the petitioner, who was working as Female Health Worker (ANM) vide order dated 29.4.1988. Petitioner alongwith similarly situate persons was designated as Staff Nurse vide office order dated 26.11.1988. Petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 though Staff Nurses, who were in the pay scale of Rs. 680-1120 were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640/ Rs. 1640-2925 in 50:50 ratio as per Annexure S-1 dated 9.4.1991. Petitioner is the senior-most Staff Nurse. The only ground to deny the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 to the petitioner is that she has not been 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 designated/appointed as ‘A’ Grade Nurse. The perusal of Annexure S-1 does not disclose that there is any category like ‘A’ Grade Nurses. The notification annexed with covering letter dated 9.4.1991 shows the category as Staff Nurse/OT Nurse, whose existing pay scale was Rs. 510-940/ Rs. 680-1120 has been revised to Rs. 1500-2640/ Rs. 1640-2925. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. R.P. Singh that staff nurses and designated staff nurses are two separate categories holding separate cadre. A conscious decision has been taken by the State Government as per Annexure A-2 to designate only those ANMs, who had put in 20 years or more service as such under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Himachal Pradesh and are two years trained ANM. Once the ANMs have been designated as staff nurses, they cannot be treated differently even though their initial qualification may be different. The duties discharged by the staff nurses and designated staff nurses are same. Once the petitioner has been designated as per office order dated 26.11.1998 as Staff Nurse, she is entitled to the same pay scale, which is payable to other regularly appointed Staff Nurses as per notification annexed alongwith covering letter dated 9.4.1991. 2. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the Court can only direct the consideration of the case and it cannot direct the respondents to pay a particular scale to particular category. It is well settled law that it is for the employer to grant pay scales after taking into consideration the qualifications, nature of duties and functions. However, it is equally well settled that while 3 taking such decision, there should not be any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa and others versus State of Karnatka and others, (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406 have held as under: “13. He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana V. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and Union of India V. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana V. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. 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 administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust or prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.” Consequently, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the release of the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 with effect from 1.4.1986 as per Annexure S-1 annexed with covering letter dated 9.4.1991 with interest @ 6% per annum. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 28.7.2010 *awasthi*