ALL ARUNACHAL PRADESH HORTICULTURE SUBORDINATE FIELD STAFF ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, All Arunachal Pradesh Horticulture Subordinate Field Staff Association (hereinafter referred to as "AAPHEFSA") has approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ / writs commanding the respondents to grant benefit of revised scale of pay at par with the similarly placed employees of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

(2.) In a narrow compass, the case of the petitioner may be put as follows: The petitioner Association is an Association comprising of the employees of the Horticulture Department under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the present strength of the Association being of 104 members, which include Horticultural Field Assistants, Recorder-cum-Surveyors, Village Level Workers (Senior) as well as Village Level Workers (Junior), Field Assistants, Field men and Grafters. The Association was formed, with due intimation to the authorities of the State Government concerned, in the year 1997-98, for the purpose of protection and improvement of the service conditions including the pay and allowances of its members. The AAPHSFSA is represented in this writ petition by its president, namely, Sri Digo Ronya. The president as well as all the other members of the petitioner Association are citizens of India and as such are entitled to all the rights, privileges and protections guaranteed to the citizens of India under the Constitution f India. The Department of Horticulture and the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary were, originally, under the Department of Agriculture in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the relevant Recruitment Rules published vide Notification No. Agri/E-22/73/Vol-II/22, dated 22.5.74, the qualifications required, at that point of time, for recruitment to the post of Supervisor Veterinary Field Assistant (i.e. SVFA) were same as the qualifications required for the posts of Assistant Farm Manager (Live-Stock)/Supervisor Veterinary Field Assistant, the Village Level Worker-Senior (i.e. VLW-Sr.) as per Notification No. Agri/E-22/73/Vol-II/3, dated 22.5.74. Similarly, the posts of Veterinary Field Assistant (VF A) and Village Level Worker-Junior (i.e. VLW-Jr.) were at par with each other in so far as prescribed qualifications were concerned. In the year 1976, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary was carved out of the Department of Agriculture. However, parity was maintained in so far as the prescribed qualifications and scales of pay between SVFA and VLW-Sr. as well as between VFA and VLW-Jr were concerned. This parity was maintained between the posts aforementioned on account of the fact that the nature of work and responsibilities connected with the said posts were similar. In the year 1986, the Department of Horticulture, was partially carved out of the Agriculture Department, but the Department of Horticulture, finally, came into independent existence in the year 1993. On the said Department of Horticulture becoming an independent identity, the posts of Horticulture Field Assistants (HFA)/Re- corder-cum-Surveyor (RCS)/Village Level Worker-Senior were kept at par with SVFA in the Veterinary Department in so far as requisite qualifications and scales of pay were concerned. Similarly, the posts of Field Assistants/Village Level Worker-Junior as well as Field -Men/Grafter were kept at par with the VFA in the Veterinary Department. Even after the Fifth Pay Commission Report, 1996, the scale of pay for the post of SVFA in the Veterinary Department was at par with HFA/ RCS/VLW Sr. in the Horticulture Department. Similarly, parity was maintained in so far as the posts of VFS in the Veterinary Department and FM/ Grafter in the Horticulture Department were concerned. By order contained in Memo No. AHV/E- 98/83, dated 13.5.99, the post of SVFA in the Veterinary Department was re-designated as Assistant Veterinarian and the scale of pay was raised from Rs. 4000-100-6000/- to Rs. 5000-150-8000/- and by the same notification, the post of VFA in the Veterinary Department was redesignated as Stockman and the scale of pay was accordingly raised fromRs.3050-75-3950-80-4590/- to 4000-100- 6000/-. The benefits of the pay scales so revised were made effective from 20.6.98. However, similar benefits were not extended to the members of the petitioner Association, despite the fact that the Group 'C' field staff of Horticulture Department, which include HFA/RCS/VLW-Sr., FA/ VLW-Jr. and FM/Grafter are the grass root level workers of the Horticulture Department and the relevant Recruitment Rules of the Horticulture Department do not envisage any promotional avenues for the said posts in contrast to the similarly placed employees of other Departments, such as, Engineering Department, Agriculture Department, etc. of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. Thus, the treatment meted out to the members of the petitioner Association is extremely discriminatory. Being aggrieved by the discriminatory policy adopted by the respondents with regard to the scales of pay between the Group-C employees of the Department of Horticulture and the employees of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary despite the fact that nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the members of the petitioner Association are similar as those of the employees of the Department Animal Husbandry and Veterinary. The petitioner Association, therefore, submitted numerous representations to the respondent seeking adequate relief, but the respondents paid no attention to the requests of the petitioner Association. The action of the respondents in following a discriminatory policy with regard to the employees of the Horticulture Department is malafide and is in blatant violation of Articles 14 and. 16 of the Constitution of India. No reasonable person, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, would have denied to the employees of the Horticulture Department the said revised scale of pay to which they are lawfully entitled to. There has, thus, been a colourable exercise of powers for collateral purposes by the respondents. The action of the respondents authorities in denying parity of pay scale is a blatant abuse of the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, whereby the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work' has been envisaged as a Constitutional goal. This is, therefore, a fit case, where the writ Court may intervene and direct the respondents to revise the scales of pay of the aforesaid employees of the Horticulture department so as to bring them at par with the employees concerned of the Veterinary department.

(3.) The respondents have contested this case by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. While admitting that the posts, which the members of the petitioner Association hold, are similar in nature and carry equal responsibilities as the persons holding the posts of SVFA/VFA of the Veterinary Department, the respondents have projected their case, briefly stated, thus: Immediately after the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, vide order No. AHV/ E-98/93, dated 13.5.99, the pay scale of Senior Veterinarian Field Assistant, earlier known as Assistant Veterinarian, was, as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission in part B, enhanced from Rs. 4000-100-6000/- to Rs. 5000-150-8000/-. Similarly, pay scale of Veterinarian Field Assistant, earlier known as Stockman, has been enhanced from Rs. 3050- 75-4500/- to Rs. 4000-100-6000/-. However, the pay scale of Horticulture Field Assistant/ Recorded-cum-Surveyor/Village Level Worker (Senior) / Village Level Worker (Junior) / Field Assisrant/Fieldmen/Grafter have been left out, though these posts involve work of the similar nature as are performed by the employees aforementioned of the department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary and carry equal responsibilities like the posts of senior Veterinarian Field Assistant/Veterinarian Field Assistant of the Veterinary Department. In this view of the matter, the authorities concerned, being conscious of the pay anomalities, has referred the matter to the Pay Anomaly Committee, constituted for this purpose, by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, to consider the grievances of the petitioner association. The entire issue is, now, pending for the decision of the Pay Anomaly Committee of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. The representations made by the petitioner Association are presently under consideration of the Pay Anomaly Committee. Thus, the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been referred to the Pay Anomaly Committee by the respondents and the Committee's decision is awaited. As the matter is under consideration of an appropriate Committee, namely, the Pay Anomaly Committee, constituted for the purpose, there may not be any need for this Court to examine the matter at the present stage. Therefore, this Court may close the matter giving liberty to the petitioner Association to approach this Court if the decision of the Pay Anomaly Committee goes against the Association.