RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Pal and 52 other Statistical Assistants in the Agriculture Department of Punjab Government seek pay parity with their counterparts holding the same post i.e. of Statistical Assistants but working in Economics and Statistical Organisation on the basic plea that the posts of both the departments were equated. The relief asked for by them is sought to rest on facts which need a necessary mention.

(2.) The Pay Commissioner way back in 1967 equated the posts of Statistical Assistants in the Agriculture Department who were in the pay scale of Rs. 130-320 with that of Statistical Assistants working in the Economics and Statistical Organisation vide Annexure P.1. On 21st of January, 1969, the Punjab Government revised the pay scales with effect from 1st February, 1968 and the petitioners who were in the pay scale of Rs. 130-320 were given revised pay scale of Rs. 200-500 and the pay scale of Statistical Assistants working in the Economics and Statistical Organisation was also revised likewise. On 10th of August, 1971, Finance Department issued a notification clarifying the position that the Statistical Assistants working in the Agriculture Department are also entitled for the same scale of Rs. 200-500 as both posts were equated and no anomaly can be created. In the year 1978, the pay scales of petitioners were revised and they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 which was again equal to pay scale of Statistical Assistants working in the Economics and Statistical Organisation. This too was done by notification, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. In the year 1978, 24 posts of Statistical Assistants were advertised for appointment in the various departments i.e. Agriculture, Economics and Statistical Organisation or any other department of Punjab Government. 28 persons were selected and were sent to various departments in the State of Punjab vide Annexure P-6. The pay scales of the persons working in the State of Punjab were revised in the year 1989 in pursuance of Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 with effect from 1st of January, 1986. In this revision the pay scales of the petitioners and the Statistical Assistants working in Economics and Statistical Organisation working in the same scale of Rs. 570-1080 were given the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 vide notification dated 20th of January, 1989 (Annexure P-8). On 9th of May, 1991 pay scale with regard to the Statistical Assistants working in the Economics and Statistical Organisation was revised by amending Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 and they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 vide Annexure P-9 with effect from 1st of January, 1986. The petitioners, however, were not given this pay scale and the Director on 11th November, 1991 addressed a letter to the Finance Department stating that no approval had come for the grant of pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 and therefore, the petitioners may not be given the same scale unless and until such approval was granted. However, vice orders dated 17th March, 1992 the Director himself granted pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 to the petitioners pending approval of the Finance Department (Annexure P-11). On 3rd of March, 1993 the Director addressed a letter to the Government with comparative chart showing that whenever the pay scales were revised of the post of Statistical Assistants working in the Economics and Statistical Organisation, the same pay scale was given to Statistical Assistants working in the Agriculture department. Meanwhile, however, the Government once again revised the pay scale of Statistical Assistants working in the Economics and Statistical Organisation by notification dated 6th June, 1994 (Annexure P-13) and they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200. The petitioners were once again denied the revised pay scale. It is so pleaded and argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that once either two posts were equated or pay scales of the two posts were equated, any hike in pay revision in one post would automatically result in hike of the equated post. It is further being argued that it was a case of joint selection and it was not in the hands of the petitioners to be allocated to a particular department and therefore, the mere fact that the petitioners came to be appointed in a department different from where their colleagues who had competed with them were appointed, even though for the same posts, would be entitled to parity in pay scales. In not granting the revised pay scales to the petitioners on two occasions, as has been noted above, the respondents are discriminating the petitioners, contends the learned counsel.

(3.) The cause of the petitioners has been opposed in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 through Natha Ram Sallan, Deputy Director of Agriculture (Headquarters) Punjab. By way of Preliminary Objection it has been pleaded that the writ is premature in view of the fact that the Fourth Punjab Pay Commission is already examining the pay structure of all the Government employees including the petitioners. On merits, even though the basic facts, as have been detailed above, have not been disputed it has been pleaded that Statistical Assistants of Economics and Statistical Organisation were given higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 and the scale was further revised to Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 1st of January, 1994 keeping in view the nature of duties and responsibilities and relative weightage/importance of work being done in the Economics and Statistical Organisation. Whereas the petitioners are concerned only with the statistics of Agriculture Department, the Statistical Assistants working in the Economics and Statistical Organisation have to feed the State Government with reliable and scientifically processed data on various socio-economic aspects of the State's economy thereby enabling the administration to evolve appropriate economic policies. In these circumstances, pay scales at par with those sanctioned to the Statistical Assistants of Economics and Statistical Organisation could not be sanctioned to the petitioners or for that mater, Statistical Assistants working in departments other than those in Economics and Statistical Organisation. On the pleadings of the parties as has been noted above, it is clear that the posts which the petitioners were holding were equated with that of Statistical Assistants working in the Economics and Statistical Organisation. It is true that in terms this fact has not been admitted in the written statement but all that has been stated in the corresponding para of written statement is that First Pay Commission recommended that not only the grade, but also the qualifications which at that time was B.A. with Mathematics should be at par prevailing in the Economics and Statistical Department. It is clear from Annexure P-1 that in the year 1967 the Pay Commission equated the posts of Statistical Assistants working in the Agriculture Department who were in the pay scale of Rs. 130-320 with the Statistical Assistants working in the Statistical and Economics Organisation. It could not at least be disputed during the course of arguments that if not the posts then at least pay scales of these two posts were certainly equated. Other documents that have been annexed with the writ petition also tend to show that these posts and their pay scales were equated and for more than 25 years whenever there was revision of pay scales, the same was in both the posts. In fact, the Department favourably recommended the case of the petitioners for their pay parity with their counterparts but it is only the Finance Department which has raised objections. A Single Bench of this Court in Gautam Mahajan v. State of Punjab,1989 2 SLR 71, relying upon three earlier decisions of this Court held that when Government decides to equate the pay scale of a certain post with that of another post, it is not open to discriminate between the incumbents of the two posts for the grant of pay scale at the time of subsequent revision. A Division Bench of this Court in Haryana State Biologists Assn. v. State of Haryana, 1994 4 RSJ 444 held that pay parity cannot be disturbed without authority of law and if the same was done, the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.