CWP No.625 of 1997 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 06.03.2009 (1) CWP No.625 of 1997 Shil Kumar Mariya and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents (2) CWP No.11069 of 2005 Lakhbir Singh and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate,for the petitioners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This judgment of mine shall dispose of the above said writ petitions as the questions of law and fact involved are identical in these two cases. All the petitioners were working as Sanitary Inspectors, Senior Sanitary Inspectors, Malaria Inspectors and Senior Malaria Inspectors. Subsequently, they were re-designated as Multi Purpose Supervisors in the Health Department of the State of Punjab. It is alleged that all the CWP No.625 of 1997 : 2 : petitioners are qualified Sanitary Inspectors and are holding Sanitary Inspectors Certificate from the recognized University/Institute. There is also cadre of Sanitary Inspectors in the Municipal Committees under the control of the Local Self Government Department. It is specifically stated that the qualifications, duties and functions of the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Local Self Government Department in the State of Punjab are exactly the same. The petitioners have relied upon Annexure P-1 to indicate the nature of duties being performed by the Sanitary Inspectors. The petitioners are seeking parity of pay scale on the doctrine or equal pay for equal work. With a view to bring home their point, they have referred to the pay scale existing before 01.01.1968, 01.01.1978, 24.03.1983 and 01.01.1986, which are as follows:- Date Municipal Committee Health Department Before 1.1.68 (1.)Municipal Committee,Rajpura,Township Rs.55- 65. (11) M.Cs, Amritsar, Ludhiana and Bhatinda Rs.80-150. 80-150 w.e.f. 1.1.68 Rs.120-250 Chief Sanitary Inspectors. 120-250 Sr.Sanitary Inspectors/Sr.Malaria Inspectors 160-400 w.e.f. 1.1.78 510-940 510-940 w.e.f. 24.3.83 570-1080 w.e.f. 1.1.1978 510-940 w.e.f. 1.1.86 1500-2640 1800-3200 1410-2460 -do- Further revised in 1994 w.e.f. 1.1.86 CWP No.625 of 1997 : 3 : From the above, it appears that upto 01.01.1978, the pay scales of the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Local Self Government Department, under the control of the Health Department of State of Punjab and the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Health Department of the State of Punjab, were equal. Disparity in the pay scales came with effect from 01.01.1978 on the basis of an order passed by the Government on 24.03.1983, Annexure P-2. It is admitted position that the pay scale of Rs.510-940/- was recommended by the Pay Commission. However, the matter was referred to the Pay Anomaly Committee and the State Government on consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Committee, revised pay scale of Chief Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors to Rs.570-1080/- with Special Pay of Rs.50/- to the Chief Sanitary Inspectors with effect from 01.01.1978. Accordingly, the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Local Self Government Department were placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.570-1080/-, whereas the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Health Department of the State of Punjab, were retained in the pay scale of Rs.510-940/-. As on 01.01.1986, on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the pay scales were again revised and the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Local Self Government Department were placed in the scale of Rs.1500-2640/- and the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Health Department of the State of Punjab, were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1410-2640/-. The pay scales of the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Local Self Government Department were again revised to Rs.1800- 3200/- with effect from 01.01.1986 vide order passed by the Government in the year 1994, but there was no corresponding revision in the pay scales as far the petitioners are concerned. Aggrieved of the above disparity in the CWP No.625 of 1997 : 4 : pay scales, the petitioners and some other filed a number of writ petitions in this Court. One of the Civil Writ Petitions No.1920 of 1987 was decided on 12.08.1992 with the following observations:- “I have heard Mr. J.P.S. Sandhu for the petitioner and Mr. G.K. Chatrath , learned advocate General , Punjab for the respondents indisputably, the employees working in the health department as well as these working in the department of local self Govt. were placed in an identical scales of pay viz Rs.510-940 with effect from 1.1.1978. it is also not disputed that their qualifications, job requirements and nature of duties are identical. In such a situation, the action of the Govt. in treating the two sets of employees performing identical duties, in a different manner in the matter of pay scale, cannot be justified. It apparently appears to be arbitrary. Furthermore, one can only lament the absolute indifference of the authorities in considering the matter. Admittedly, the recommendations from the department of health for the grant of Selection Grade to the petitioners has been made vide letter dated July 16,1982. In spite of the fact that more than ten years have already elapsed, the Govt. has not been able to decide the matter. As a result, a number of person CWP No.625 of 1997 : 5 : are approaching Courts of law.” Consequent upon the aforesaid directions given by this Court, the respondents passed an order dated 27.04.1993,Annexure P-4. This order (Annexure P-4) again became subject matter of challenge in CWP No.12254 of 1993, decided on 26.05.1995 (Annexure P-5). This Court while quashing the order dated 27.04.1993, gave following directions:- “Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside on the ground that it is based on wrong assumption of facts. The Respondents are directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. It appears to be appropriate to further direct the respondents to hear a representative of the petitioners before passing the final order. The needful shall be done within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. The impugned order is quashed. The respondents are directed to decide the case afresh.” On the basis of the aforesaid directions, the Director, Health Services, Punjab, made following recommendations to the Secretary to CWP No.625 of 1997 : 6 : Government of Punjab, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide his communication dated 29.05.1996 (Annexure P-7) :- “The scale of pay of Rs.570-1080 w.e.f. 1.1.78 is to be given but no arrears will be paid from 1.1.78 to 31.12.86. The arrears w.e.f.1.1.86 to 30.4.96 will be deposited in the G.P.F. Account of the employees.” These recommendations were considered and the respondents passed a speaking order dated 03.09.1996 (Annexure P-9) which has been impugned in the present writ petition. The claim of the petitioners have been rejected on the following grounds: (i) that the pay scales of the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Local Self Government Department were raised with effect from 01.01.1978 to Rs.160-400, whereas those of the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Health Department continued to remain in the pay scale of Rs.120-250/-. It is admitted that with effect from 01.01.1978, the pay scales of both the cadres of services were at Rs.510-940/-. It is further stated that the pay scales of Sanitary Inspectors of Local CWP No.625 of 1997 : 7 : Self Government Department were further revised to Rs.1500-2640/- as per conversion table, but on 07.03.1994 they have been sanctioned pay scale of Rs.1800-3200/- with effect from 01.01.1986, whereas the petitioners who are Sanitary Inspectors in the Health Department of the Punjab State, they were remained in the pay scale of Rs.1410-2640/- and with effect from 23.01.1989 they were redesignated as Multi Purpose Supervisors and their 50% senior cadre was placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/-, and (ii) that the petitioners have promotional avenues. In the reply filed, the plea of the respondents by and large is the same as in the impugned order as is evident from paragraph 8 of the writ petition. However, in Civil Writ Petition No.11069 of 2005 it is pleaded that the duties of the two sets of the employees are different. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected vide impugned order on the grounds that they were placed in the different pay scale with effect from 01.01.1978. In fact, this is the grouse of the petitioners that they should have been placed in the same pay scale rather than in different pay scales. This Court while passing the judgment dated 12.08.1992 in CWP No.625 of 1997 : 8 : Civil Writ Petition No.1925 of 1987 as also judgment dated 26.5.1995 passed in CWP No.1225 of 1993, has categorically dealt with the question of the nature of duties and ruled that the nature of duties of both the sets of employees are similar and no disparity with regard to pay scales is permissible. This issue, thus, stands concluded by the aforesaid judgments. The ground for rejection of the pay scales that the Sanitary Inspectors in Local Self Government Department were placed in the higher pay scales, itself shows disparity and discrimination. Though the case of the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Local Self Government Department was referred to the Pay Anomaly Committee, but there is nothing on record to indicate that the case of the petitioners was also referred to the Pay Anomaly Committee and, thus, the Pay Anomaly Committee had no occasion to consider the claim of the petitioners. In so far as the plea of the respondents that the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Health Department of the State of Punjab have promotional avenues, also cannot be a ground for denial of the similar treatment to the petitioners who were all along upto 1.1.1978 in the same pay scale as the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Local Self Government Department and were performing the similar duties. Mr.Yatinder Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents has referred to the judgment of this Court reported as Kewal Ram Sharma and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1989 (3) SLR, 507. In this judgment, the following observations have been made:- CWP No.625 of 1997 : 9 : “In Civil Writ Petition No.1104 of 1987, it has also been stated in the return file on behalf of the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Home Affairs and Justice that there was difference between the emoluments of the Punjab Civil Secretariat and those of other “A” Class offices of directorates etc. with the upgradation of the offices from “B” to “A” Class including the office of the State Transport Commissioner with effect from 23rd February, 1977, these offices have been brought at par with “A” Class offices other than the Punjab Civil Secretariat and not that they have been brought at par with the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these petitions and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh's case (supra) there can be no dispute that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive government and the export bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the Courts.” Learned Deputy Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Randhir Singh CWP No.625 of 1997 : 10 : Vs. Union of India and others, (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 618, wherein the drivers (Constables) in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration and the Drivers (Constables) in the Railway Protection Force were placed in different pay scales and the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the writ petition filed by the drivers (Constable ) in the Delhi Police Force, with the following observations:- “There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the “powers, functions and privileges of a police officer”, their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others? There is none. The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of “equal pay CWP No.625 of 1997 : 11 : for equal work” is not a principle which the courts may recognize and act upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a part with the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from January 1, 1973, the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect.” In the present case, there is findings by this Court in two different writ petitions about the similar nature of duties. Disparity is apparent. The ratio of the judgment in Randhir Singh’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders Annexures P-09 and P-10 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the same pay scale to the petitioner as was granted to the Sanitary Inspectors in the Local Self Government Department with effect from 01.01.1978 with all consequential pay revisions. I am informed that the petitioners have retired from service. The respondents will pay the arrears after re-fixing the pay scales of the petitioners within a period of four months from today and will also re-fix the consequential retrial benefits including the pensionary benefits accordingly and release the arrears within CWP No.625 of 1997 : 12 : a period of two months thereafter. No costs. 06.03.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES