DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is presently holding the post of Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer, Land Claims Organization, Rehabilitation Department vide present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India claims parity in pay scales with his counterparts working on the post of Tehsildar/Tehsildar (Sales). The facts which have not been controverted and in fact have been candidly admitted go to show that prior to the reorganisation of Punjab and Haryana, the post of Assistant Registrar and Tehsildar/Tehsildar (Sales) was equal and identical in respect of pay scales. A point on the aforesaid posts also was on the basis of same qualifications and nature of duties and responsibilities were also the same. The pay scale prior to reorganisation of the above-said posts was Rs. 350-800 plus Rs. 50/- as special pay. With effect from April 1, 1979 and far after the reorganisation of the States, the Government of Haryana revised the pay scale of the post of Tehsildar/Tehsildar (Sales) from the one mentioned above to Rs. 800-1600 plus Rs. 50/- as special pay whereas the person holding the post of Assistant Registrar was to draw the pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/-. In connection with the implementation of 4th Pay Commission, respondent No. 3 is said to have recommended parity in pay scales, mention of which posts has been made above, vide his letter dated February 6, 1987 copy whereof has been placed on the record of the petition as Annexure P2 . The pay scales were once again revised by the State of Haryana with effect from January 1, 1986 vide notification No. GSR/39/Constitution/Articles 309/86 dated April 29, 1987. The pay scale of Tehsildar/Tehsildar (Sales) was revised to Rs. 2000-3200 plus Rs. 100/- as special pay whereas for the post of Assistant Registrar two different pay scales were given i.e. Rs. 1600-2660/- for others and Rs. 2000-3200 plus Rs. 100/- as special pay for Tehsildars. The disparity in the pay scales was not obviously to the liking of the petitioner and after revision of pay scales in the year 1986 as indicated above, the petitioner made a representation to the State Government for removing the anomalies created in the revised pay scales. On the representation filed by the petitioner and other equally situate persons the matter was referred to the Secretary Anomaly Committee, Finance Department, Haryana, Chandigarh vide letter dated July 15, 1987. The matter was dismissed threadbare before, the Anomaly Committee and thereafter Secretary, Rehabilitation Department i.e. respondent No. 2 recommended that the pay scale of Assistant Registrar cannot be lower than that of post of Tehsildar/Tehsildar (Sales). It is the positive case of the petitioner which has not been refuted, rather has been admitted in the written statement that the aforesaid recommendation was made by respondent No. 2 in spite of the fact that a competent body was convinced that the two posts involved equal responsibilities and same qualifications for appointment to the posts in question and were even equated for the purpose of pay scales by the Secretary, Rehabilitation Department under whom both Assistant Registrar and Tehsildar/Tehsildar (Sales) work when notification dated August 23, 1990 revised pay scales of various categories inclusive of the posts referred to above, the disparity in the pay scale of two posts was still not rectified. The pay scale of Tehsildar/Tehsildar (Sales) was revised with effect from May 1, 1990 as Rs. 2000-3500 plus Rs. 100/- as special pay and the pay scale of naib Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar (Sales) was also revised to Rs. 1640-2990 plus Rs. 90/- as special pay. However, the petitioner and other equally situated persons kept on drawing the earlier pay scale of Rs. 1600-2600 which happened to be less than even to the pay scale of Naib Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar (Sales) which was a post lower than that of Assistant Registrar which the petitioner is holding.

(2.) As has been mentioned above, on facts there is no dispute whatsoever and it has been admitted in the written statement that the pay scale of Tehsildar (Sales) was revised from April 1, 1979 to Rs. 800-1600 plus Rs. 50/- as special pay and that of Assistant Registrar to Rs. 800-1600 plus Rs. 50/- as special pay and if a Tehsildar (Sales) is posted on that post to Rs. 700-1250 i.e. for Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer. It is further admitted that respondent No. 3 Joint Secretary Rehabilitation requested the Finance Department on February 6, 1987 in response to letter dated January 9, 1987 to bring to post of Assistant Registrar at par with that of Tehsildar (Sales) in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1600 plus Rs. 50/- as special pay but the Finance Department did not agree. It is further admitted that after revision of pay scales with effect from January 1, 1986 the Government in Finance Department called for the representation regarding removal of anomalies vide letter dated July 6, 1987 and in response thereto it was recommended by the Rehabilitation Department vide letter dated July 15, 1987 to allow the pay scales of Tehsildar (Sales) to Assistant Registrar also. The only discordant view shown by the respondents is that even though competent bodies like Anomaly Committee as also the Rehabilitation Department were of clear view that the two posts, reference of which has been given above, were equated and had same nature of duties and responsibilities and same qualifications for appointment to the said posts, it is the Finance Department which had turned down equation in the pay scales of the two posts and, therefore, nothing at all could be done in the matter.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the decision of Finance Department to turn down equation in the pay scales even though there was complete justification for the same and the matter for such equation was held genuine by the Competent bodies and was recommended by the department itself, the action of the Government based upon comments of the Finance Department which comments were not even available was wholly unjustified and arbitrary. For the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel squarely relies upon two judgments of this Court in Dr. Gautam Mahajan v. State of Punjab,1989 2 SLR 70 & Kirpal Jeet v. State of Punjab,1987 4 SLR 594.