HARYANA STATE BIOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are Biologists in the State of Haryana have prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents for enhancement of their existing pay scale so that it is brought at par with the pay scale of Rs. 2,200- 4,000 as also time pay scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500 and Rs. 4,100-5,300 after five years and twelve years respectively as has been done in the case of HCMS-II and Dental Surgeons. It has been submitted that the cadre of Biologists was created in the year 1977 in the Health Department of Haryana under the Urban Malaria Scheme programme launched by the Central Government. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post was MSc. (Zoology). The main job responsibility involved being over all incharge of the programme. The post of Programme Officer was made gazetted and given status equivalent to Malaria Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 400-1,000, the same as that of HCMS-II Doctors. After the implementation of the modified plan of operation, the post of Malaria Officer was thereafter upgraded to Class I and HCMS Doctors (Class I) were being posted to as D.M.O. since then. The post of Biologist was allowed to remain Class II only equivalent to HCMS II. The initial scale of both the Biologists as well as HCMS II was Rs. 400-1,000 which was revised to Rs. 900- 1,700 in the year 1979 and again in the year 1986 the pay scale of both the categories was revised to Rs. 2,000-3,500. In May, 1989, the Government of Haryana revised the pay scales of HCMS-II to Rs. 2,200-4,000 vide notification No. 6/38/3FR(FD)- 87 dated 2.5.1989. They were further benefited and the time scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500 and Rs. 4,100-5,300 after putting in five years and 12 years respectively was granted to such HCMS. No revision or any other benefit was given to the Biologist cadre with the result that the petitioners presented a charter of demands to the Health Minister of Haryana on 18.6.1989 with the request to maintain parity in pay scale to that of HCMS II. The minister referred the representation to the Pay Anomaly Committee for consideration but despite the assurance no action was taken with the result that the petitioners filed the present petition.

(2.) Most of the facts alleged in the petition have been admitted. It is further sub-mitted that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the pay scale which is being paid to HCMS II Doctors. The State Government is stated to have been periodically revising the pay scales of different categories of employees of various departments and found that the petitioners were not entitled to the revision of grades. It is submitted that the State Government had the inherent administrative power to prescribe and grant the pay scale to any class or category of government employees borne on different and distinct cadres and governed by the separate set of Statutory Service Rules, keeping in view the financial constraints the pay scales of Biologists are stated to have been revised from Rs. 400-1,000 to Rs. 900-1,700 and 1.1.1986 respectively. It is submitted that the posts of biologists were created in the year 1987 but it is denied that Biologists were made overall incharge of the Programme as claimed by them. The Biologists are stated to have never been given the status equivalent to Malaria Officer. The post of Malaria Officer is shown to be in different cadre. It is contended that as no legal or fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After going through the pleadings of the parties and various judgments cited on their behalf, we find that once a parity in the pay scale of the employees in two. categories is granted, the same cannot be withdrawn and the parity disturbed. Once the State is shown to have made a conscious decision of providing parity in the pay scales of employees failing in two different cadres, they cannot be permitted to deprive one class of category by disturbing the parity. Any order passed or action taken which results in deprivation of the parity in the pay scales would be discriminatory being violative of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution requiring interference. The record reveals that Biologists like the petitioners and H.C.M.S. II were treated alike till the order dated 2.6.1989, Annexure P/3, was passed by which HCMS Doctors (Scale II) were given a preferential treatment in the parity in the pay scales in both the categories was Rs. 400-1,000 which was kept at par by the Third Pay Commission and Fourth Pay Commission. The continuance conduct persistent adhered to unambiguously shows that respondents have made a conscious decision of keeping the pay scales of the Biologists and H.C.MS. II Scale, at par. The parity of pay scales in the two categories was followed apparently keeping in view the qualifications and the nature of duties of the persons holding the post in the two aforesaid categories. The Supreme Court in 'The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others, 1991 2 SLR 131 (SC), considered the case of the employees of two Corporations who had been granted parity in the pay scales at different times which was disturbed by the Union of India forcing the employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation to approach the Court for the grant of relief with the direction to the respondents to adhere to the parity in the pay scales of the employees falling in the two Corporations. The plea that employees of the Cotton Corporation of India were differently situated was not accepted by the apex Court and a direction was issued to the respondent-Union of India to suitably modify the order with regard to the revision of pay scales of the employees in the unrevised cadre in the Corporation in a way that the revised pay scales and allowances of all the category of the employees in the said cadre are at par with the pay scales and allowances of such employees with Cotton Corporation of India. Dealing with the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held : "It is thus evident that although in 1970 there was parity in the pay scales of the employees falling in the four categories referred to above who were employed with the respondent-Corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, the said parity was disturbed in course of time on account of the fact that in the Cotton Corporation of India there was timely revision in the pay-scales in 1973, 1977 and 1982, whereas in the respondent-Corporation, the revision in the pay scales was after a much longer gap in 1976 and 1983. The revised pay-scales granted to the employees of the Cotton Corporation of India with effect from January 1, 1973 were given to the employees of the respondent-Corporation to the employees of the respondent- Corporation with effect from August 1, 1976. The said pay-scales were fixed as per the Third Central Pay Commission formula which had come into force with effect from January 1, 1973. This would show that while the employees of the Cotton Corporation of India were given the revised pay-scale in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula with effect from January 1, 1973, when the revised pay scales as recommended by the Third Pay Commission were brought into force, the employees of the respondent- Corporation were given the said revised pay scales from a later date, i.e. August 1, 1976. In the Cotton Corporation of India the employees had a revision of their pay scales with effect from October 1,1977 and a further revision with effect from September 1, 1982 whereas in the respondent-Corporation there was no revision in the pay scales after the revision of 1976 till the passing of the order dated April 25, 1986 during the pendency of these writ petitions whereby the pay scales have been revised with effect from August 1,1983. The revised pay scales fixed under order dated April 25, 1986, are, however, much lower than the pay-scales of similar employees in the Cotton Corporation of India which were fixed with effect from September 1, 1982. Thus, we find that though there was parity in the pay-scales of the employees falling in the categories mentioned above in the respondent-Corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, in 1970, the said parity was disturbed in 1973 when the pay-scales of the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India were revised in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula. The parity was sought to be restored in 1976 when the pay-scale of the employees in the respondent-Corporation were also revised in accordance with the Third Pay Commission formula, though with effect from a later date. It was again disturbed when the pay-scales of the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India were revised in 1977 and 1982 and there was no similar revision in the pay-scales of the employees in the respondent-Corporatioa It has been urged on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India are distinct legal entities carrying on different trading activities and the petitioners cannot claim parity in pay-scales with the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India and that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked. It is not doubt true that the respondent-Corporation and the Cotton Corporation of India, are distinct legal entities. But at the same time it cannot be ignored that both are instrumentalities of the Government of India who is bound by the directives contained in Part IV of the Constitution. In this context it may be pointed out that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in its order dated March 14, 1986 in writ petition No. 12655 of 1986 and connected matter, the Government of India had appointed a High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Justice R.B. Msra, to go into the various aspects relating to pay-scales and other incidental matter such as additional DA, interim relief and other allowances to the employees working in the Public Sector governed by the Central Government pay-scales and DA. The said committee after considering the pay-scales in the various Public Enterprises having Central Government pattern of DA, has recommended uniform pay-scales for the employees including subordinate staff falling in the categories of (i) Attendant, Messenger, Peon, Watchmen, Safaiwala, Mali etc. (ii) Daftry, Jamadar, Head Watchman etc.; (iii) Record Keeper, Record Sorter, Junior Clerks etc. and (iv) UDC, Assistants etc. The committee was of the view that rationalisation of the present heterogeneous structure of pay-scales was required in the interests of uniform remuneration for similar work in the different enterprises." (Page 65, para 8.16). In Jute Corporation of India Officers Association vs. Jute Corporation of India Limited and another, 1990 2 JT 255(SC) this Court has given directions for applying the revised pay-scales recommended by the said Committee to the various Public Sector Undertakings of the Government of India having the Central Government pattern of DA. This shows that there would be parity in pay scales of the employees falling in the four categories, with which we are concerned, in the various enterprises of the Government of India which are following the Central Government DA pattern. There appears to be no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar parity in the matter of pay-scales with the staff falling in the aforesaid four categories employed with the Cotton Corporation of India especially when such employees were having same pay scales in 1970." To the same effect are the judgments of this Court in R.S. Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others,1991 2 SLR 168, Kirpal Jeet vs. State of Punjab and another,1987 4 SLR 594 and Harsaran Singh vs. State of Punjab and others,1984 2 SLR 384.