HARIPRASANNA GHOSE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: The petitioners are the Sub-Inspectors of Calcutta Police Force in the scale of pay of Rs. 200-350/- with effect from 1st July, 1970 and after their training they have been permanently absorbed in different units of Calcutta Police. Under ROPA Rules, 1971 the scale of pay of Sub-Inspector was Rs. 300-600/- and under ROPA Rules, 1981 it was fixed at Rs. 300-910/-. The grievances of the petitioners are that the State Government extended the benefits of New/Intermediate Selection Grade to eight Sub-Inspectors being respondents Nos. 5 to 12 who were all batch mates of the petitioners and they were recruited as Sub-Inspectors on the same date as the petitioners. The extension of Selection Grade were given with effect from 21st April, 1981 in the Selection Grade scale of Rs. 560-825/-. The names of the said eight private-respondents are set out in paragraph 3 of the writ petition with serial number in Gradation List. It is contended that according to the Appointment Gazette prepared on the basis of merit in the test fear recruitment the petitioners are entitled to the Selection Grade earlier than the private-respondents. The result of the extension of the Selection Grade was that the petitioners' basic pay was fixed at Rs. 580/- per month whereas the basic pay of respondents Nos. 5 to 12 was fixed at Rs. 700/- per month giving rise to a discrepancy of Rs. 120/- per month. As a result the total difference in pay has come up to Rs. 30/- per month at present because the basic pay of the petitioners from Rs. 720/- to Rs. 760/- per month whereas the aforesaid respondents are drawing Rs. 910/- per month. It is further stated that the petitioners have only taken 18 years benefit and they have now been put to the scale of Rs. 425-1050/- and no promotions since their appointment have been given to them. According to the petitioners it would be sheer injustice that at the time of retirement the petitioners would have a total difference of pay of around Rs. 1,000/- per month. Several representations were made to respondent No. 2, the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, for removing the discrepancy and to do justice but all went in vain. It is contended that depriving the petitioners from the New/Intermediate Selection Grade is wholly illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 24 and 16 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the State Government must remove the discrepancy of pay between the petitioners and the private-respondents mentioned hereinbefore who are similarly situated.

(2.) The State of West Bengal contested the writ petition and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, the respondent No. 3, affirmed the Affidavit. It is stated that the New/Intermediate Selection Grade Posts was sanctioned by the Government with effect from 1st March, 1974 rank-wise and allotting quota initially 10 per cent and subsequently 15 per cent of each rank. The said Selection Grade Posts were repealed by the ROPA Rules, 1981 with effect from 1st April, 1981 and were allotted according to seniority of the Sub-Inspector in the Gradation List. According to the vacancy available for New/Intermediate Selection Grade Posts eight Sub-Inspectors being respondents herein were allotted the said Selection Grade Posts strictly according to their seniority. It is specifically stated that the private-respondents were juniors to the petitioners as per Gradation List. It is further stated that the Gradation List is prepared for particular batch after their training at Barackpore Police Training College according to their performance reports i.e. according to the marks obtained by the candidate belonging to the same batch. It is the case of the State that the petitioners were below the respondents Nos. 5 to 12 in the Gradation List. It is further stated that the petitioners though belonged to the same batch but being juniors in the Gradation List, because of the aforesaid fact, could not avail of the New/Intermediate Selection Grade Posts which were only 10/15 per cent of the total posts of the Sub-Inspectors. It is also denied that Annexure. 'A' to the writ petition does not represent the Gradation List. Those are copies of the order indicating the names simplicitor who were appointed temporarily as Sub-Inspectors in the Calcutta Police Force and they would undergo prescribed course of training at the Police Training College, Barackpore, with effect from the date of appointment. The case of the State is specific to the point that the petitioners cannot claim that they are senior to respondents Nos. 5 to 12 unless their names are posted higher above the names of the private-respondents in the Gradation List which was prepared after their training in the Police Training College which is on the basis of their merit based on the marks obtained. It is clarified in the Affidavit that the Appointment Gazette prepared in the test for recruitment order ceases to have any effect when the Sub-Inspectors come out successful from the Police Training College and the Gradation List is prepared thereafter on the basis of merit in the final examination held in the Police Training College. The two Sub-Inspectors named in the writ petition are also not junior to the petitioners. The Affidavit further states that the Selection Grade Posts carries higher scale of pay than the post of ordinary grade in the cadre of Sub-Inspector since the petitioners could not reach the Selection Grade Post because of limited quota and want of vacancy and as such they are bound to get lower emoluments which is the inevitable consequence, It is strongly denied that there is any illegality or irregularity. It is also stated that though New/Intermediate Selection Grade Posts is not considered as a promotional post though it carries higher scale of pay. It is admitted that the petitioners were deprived of Selection Grade post because of non-availability of such post because of the total strength of the quota of 10 per cent and subsequently 15 per cent of the total strength of the Sub-Inspectors attached to the Calcutta Police. It is further stated that the creation of supernumerary post in Selection Grade is not possible when such posts have been repealed with effect from 1st April, 1981, The Affidavit further states- that by the introduction of uniform scale of pay as introduced by the ROPA Rules, 1981, the pay of all the then Sub-Inspectors is bound to remain distinctly different. Emphasis is made in the Affidavit on the point that the Indian Police Service and the service of Sub-Inspector of Police, Calcutta, are not considered as par because one is guided by the Rules framed by the Government of India and the other by the Rules framed by the State Government.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners as well as the respondents Nos. 5 to 12 were all directly recruited to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police on 1st April, 1970. On the basis of the Appointment Gazette which was prepared on merit in the test for recruitment the petitioner No. 1 was the seniormost amongst all the direct recruits and some of the other petitioners were placed in higher position than some of the respondents Nos. 5 to 12. On the basis of the Chart placed before the Court the petitioners were placed at Serial Nos. 529 to 541. The Draft Gradation List shows that the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 5 to 12 were appointed between 1st July, 1970 to 15th September, 1970. From August 1974 the ROPA Rules, 1971 was amended and New/Intermediate Selection Grade was incorporated and all Government employees in the scale of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 600'- who were entitled to Selection Grade should have been given New/Intermediate Selection Grade in the scale of Rs. 560/- to 825/-. According to the learned Advocate the eligibility criteria for an admissibility of the New/Intermediate Selection Grade was 10 years in the grade and the percentage of the cadre to whom the said scale was admissible was fixed at 15 per cent. With effect from 21st April, 1981 the respondents Nos. 5 to 12 were given benefit of new/inter-mediate pay scale of Rs. 560/- to Rs. 825/- and thereafter the New Intermediate pay scale was abolished thus the petitioners of 1971 batch of Sub-Inspectors of Police were denied the protection of pay compared to their fellow batch-mates being respondents Nos. 5 to 12 who joined the service in the same year; and as an example it was cited that the present effect of granting such selection grade is that the basic pay of the petitioner No. 1 is Rs. 2255/- while that of respondent No. 5 is Rs. 2655/-. The learned Advocate brought in the principle of equal pay for equal work and the principle enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, more so when the petitioners and the private-respondents recruited in the same year and belonging to the same cadre have been discriminated. It is submitted that the New/Intermediate Selection Grade admissible to 15 per cent of the cadre strength could have extended to the petitioners but because it was abolished the petitioners were deprived of the benefit and this will lead to permanent deprivation of the petitioners from their legitimate dues throughout their service career. The contention of the learned Advocate is that the seniority of respondents Nos. 5 to 12 has been fixed on the basis of the date of the joining of Government service and not on the purported basis of the List forwarded by the Police Training College. It is submitted that the norms of seniority might be a valid consideration for certain purposes including promotion but such norms cannot be applied in an unreasonable manner so as to deprive the petitioners for all time to come of their legitimate dues which similarly situated persons are getting and such a classification would be quite irrational one. It is further submitted that irrespective of classification of junior and senior groups if the same work was done by both the groups the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is definitely applicable and the petitioner has a strong ease on the point. The system of allowing benefit of 15 per cent of the cadre with the New/Intermediate Pay Scale would have given s chance to the petitioners to get the benefit but its discontinues resulted in creating two grounds of the same cadre similarly circumstanced which is not permissible and is in irrational. It is further submitted that even after the abolition of such Rules relating to the benefit of New/Intermediate Selection Grade the State Government on 27th October, 1989 has granted such pay scales to 487 supernumerary Sub-Inspectors with retrospective effect from 1st March, 1974.