Case: PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR Vs. THANA SINGH AND ORS

the work performed by the employees on those posts. Only in cases of complete similarity in the nature of work, duties, responsibilities and promotional channels, parity of pay scale can be claimed. Merely on the ground that Sub Fire Officers are categorised in Group XII along with Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors cannot be a ground for seeking parity of pay scale. As submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant-Board, the nature of work, duties, responsibilities and initial qualification for recruitment of each post are entirely different as all these posts belong to different cadre. 23. That apart, though in the year 1988 there were only four posts in Group XII, number of several posts have been subsequently included. Vide Finance Circular No.44/89 dated 15.06.1989, seven more posts were added in Group XII. Thereafter, vide Finance Circular No.45/89 dated 26.06.1989, there was a further increase of seven posts in Group XII. The fourteen posts which were added to Group XII are:- Punjabi Teacher, Drawing Teacher, Hindi Teacher, D.P.Ed. Teacher, Master/Mistress, Science Teacher, Security Inspector, Modeller Divisional Head Draftsman, Prosecuting Inspector (now Law Officer), Law Officer Grade II, Medical Assistant, Librarian and Fire Officer, etc. At the time of the issuance of order dated 03.10.1990 revising the scale of pay of Head Clerks, Head Clerk- cum-Divisional Accountants, Internal Auditors etc., there were various posts included in Group XII. For all these posts, source and mode of recruitment, qualifications and nature of work are entirely different. If the contention of the Sub Fire Officers for parity of pay scale with pay scale of Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors is accepted, such parity of scale of pay may have to be extended to all other posts in Group XII which would involve huge financial repercussion on the finance of the Board which is a service- oriented institution. The High Court, in our view, erred in not keeping in view the financial consequences of the direction to give parity of pay scale to the Sub Fire Officers. As held in Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee (2006) 9 SCC 643 , ?it is now a well settled principle of law that financial implication is a relevant factor for accepting the revision of pay.? 24. Before the learned Single Judge, the respondents relied upon the letter written by the Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda to the Chief Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda dated 25.03.1991 to consider the request of Sub Fire Officers for parity of pay scale with pay scale of Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors. As rightly contended by the appellant-Board, the letter was written only on the ground that there would not be much financial burden. But the said letter does not indicate any parity of nature of work, responsibilities, functional need, etc. The said letter of the Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda also did not take note of other various categories of posts included in Group XII. Referring to the said letter dated 25.03.1991 of the Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda, the learned Single Judge observed that the plea of the respondents for parity of pay scale was supported by the Superintendent Engineer. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view the well factors like source, mode of recruitment, nature of work, etc. for the post of Sub Fire Officers and the Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors. 25. In the writ petition, the respondents have taken the plea that they are entitled to the scale of pay on par with the employees of the Punjab Government in parity of the wages. Nature of work performed by those in the service of Punjab Government are different from those in service of the Board, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to accept the plea of the respondents claiming parity with the employees of the State Government. 26. The learned Single Judge, however, proceeded under the erroneous footing that merely because Sub Fire Officers were categorised in Group XII, they were entitled parity of scale of pay with pay scale of Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors. Inclusion of posts of Sub Fire Officers in Group XII may not be a determinative factor to hold that the Sub Fire Officers are equal with Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants, and Internal Auditors. Mere difference in pay scale does not always amount to discrimination; it depends upon the mode of selection/recruitment, nature, quality of work and duties and that the status of both the posts are identical. Observing that it is not always impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre, this Court, in SAIL, held as under:-"29. It is a settled legal proposition that it is not always impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection based on merit with due regard to experience and seniority. (Vide State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC 121 and Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others (1989) 2 SCC 235.) ?Non-uniformities would not in all events violate Article 14.? Thus, a mere difference does not always amount to discrimination. (Vide Madhu Kishwar and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (1996) 5 SCC 125 , Associate Banks Officers? Assn. v. SBI and Others (1998) 1 SCC 428 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 )?.27. Respondents have not produced any material to show that there is any similarity/identity between the posts of Sub Fire Officers and the Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors in terms of the nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications and mode of recruitment etc. to apply the principle of parity of pay scale. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the Sub Fire Officers are different and parity cannot be claimed merely on the ground that they are categorised in one group.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. It is fairly well settled that equation of pay scales must be left to the Government and on the decision of the experts and the Court should not interfere with it.In the year 1988, though the post of Sub Fire Officers has been included in Group XII in one category as that of Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors, the nature of work, duties, responsibilities and initial qualifications for recruitment and manner of recruitment to each post are different since all these posts belong to different cadre. The respondents cannot claim as a matter of right that they should be given the similar pay scale as are given to the categories of posts such as Head Clerks, Head Clerk- cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors.The appellant-Board being an autonomous body governed by its own regulations, it was for the Board to classify its employees/posts on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, the Board would be justified in prescribing different pay scales. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be applicable only when a discrimination is made out between the persons who are similarly situated and not otherwise. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay to prove and establish that they have been discriminated.The person claiming parity must produce material before the court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and that they are entitled to parity of pay scales.Burden of establishing parity in pay scale and employment is on the person claiming such right. There were neither pleadings nor any material produced by the respondents to prove that the nature of work performed by the Sub Fire Officers is similar with that of the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors to claim parity of pay scale. As pointed out earlier, the burden lies upon the party who claims parity of pay scale to prove similarity in duties and responsibilities. In the writ petition, respondents have only claimed parity of pay scale with those of the employees working under the Punjab Government which was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. Determination of parity or disparity in duties and responsibilities is a complex issue and the same should be left to the expert body. When the expert body considered revision of pay for various posts, it did not revise the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers. When the expert body has taken such a view, it is not for the courts to substitute its views and interfere with the same and take a differentHigh Court, in our view, erred in not keeping in view the financial consequences of the direction to give parity of pay scale to the Sub Fire Officers.In the writ petition, the respondents have taken the plea that they are entitled to the scale of pay on par with the employees of the Punjab Government in parity of the wages. Nature of work performed by those in the service of Punjab Government are different from those in service of the Board, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to accept the plea of the respondents claiming parity with the employees of the State Government.Respondents have not produced any material to show that there is any similarity/identity between the posts of Sub Fire Officers and the Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors in terms of the nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications and mode of recruitment etc. to apply the principle of parity of pay scale. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the Sub Fire Officers are different and parity cannot be claimed merely on the ground that they are categorised in one group.