HARYANA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY Vs. DHARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated November 21, 1990 in Civil Writ Petition No. 16791, of 19,89. Petitioners-Dharam Chand and 102 other Clerks employed in the Haryana Agriculture University, through writ petition referred to above, successfully claimed same pay scale and allowances as were being given to the Clerks appointed before June 6, 1980. from the date of their appointments, on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined in Article 32 (d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge on the basis of decision of the Apex Court in P. Savita and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , (1986-I-LLJ-79) and on the facts, as shall be detailed hereinafter as referred to above, directed the appellant-Haryana Agriculture University to grant the same pay scale and allowances to the petitioners as were being granted to the Clerks appointed before June 6, 1980. from the date of their appointment, leaving however, the parties to bear their own costs. The obvious prayer of the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal is to set aside the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in C. W. P. No. 16791 of 1989, and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. Before, however, the grounds pressed into service for the desired relief, as have been canvassed by Mr. S. C. Mohunta, Senior Advocate learned counsel for the appellant-University, are taken into consideration and commented upon, it shall be useful to give a backdrop of the events culminating into filing of Civil Writ Petition No. 16791 of 1989. Petitioners were appointed as Clerks in the Haryana Agriculture University after June 6, 1980. It has been their case so pleaded in the petition that the Clerks working in the Haryana Agriculture University formed one cadre and have one seniority list. The qualifications for the post of Clerk in Matric I class or Higher Secondary, II Class or B. A. The duties and responsibilities of the clerk are the same. Before April 1, 1979, the pay scale for the post of Clerk was 120-300 but w. e. f. April 1, 1979 the said pay scale of Rs. 120-300 was revised to Rs. 420-700 and subsequently, when again pay scales were revised this pay scale of Rs. 420-700 was revised to Rs. 1200-2040. However, the clerks appointed on or after June 6, 1980 were granted the pay scale of Rs. 400-660 w. e. f. June 6, 1980 and this pay scale of Rs. 400-600 was revised to 950-1500 w. e. f. January 1, 1986. The extract of the decision dated November 26, 1980, whereby the University decided to grant different Pay scales to the Clerks on the basis of their date of appointment, is available on records as Annexure P-3. The petitioners filed representation to the Vice Chancellor that all Clerks were having same qualifications, duties and responsibilities and, thus, the action to grant different pay scales was contrary to the principles of 'equal pay for equal work'. In context of the facts, referred to above, the petitioners naturally pleaded that decision of the University in granting different pay scales to equally situated persons was discriminatory and thus, violative of Article 4 of the Constitution of India. They also canvassed that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Article 32 (d) of the Constitution of India had too been violated.

(2.) THE claim of petitioners was contested on behalf of the appellant-University and in the written statement filed on its behalf, it was pleaded that the Clerk recruited before June 6, 1980 had been appointed in the pay scale of 120-300. On revision of pay scale w. e. f. April 1, 1979, the Board of Management in its meeting held on December 26, 1979, took a policy decision for maintaining firm linkage in regard to grant of revised pay scales and for future recruitments on the pattern of the State Government. Accordingly, the Pay Scales of clerks was revised to 400-600 at par with the State Govt. Clerks in the State Government. The Clerks in the State Govt. were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 110-225, the grant of pay scale at par with the pay scale of Clerks to Haryana Agriculture University employees created an anomaly and the Clerks recruited in the pay scale of Rs. 120-300 insisted for grant of improved scale. After detailed deliberations and considering all aspects, the pay scales Anomaly Removal Committee of the University headed by the then Finance Secretary Shri T. K. Banerjee recommended the grant of personal scale of Rs. 420-700 to such Clerks who were recruited in the pay scale of Rs. 120-300. This recommendation was approved by the Board of Management of the University. As the recruitments in the pay scale of Rs. 120-300 were made prior to June 6, 1980, the personal scale of Rs. 420-700, was, thus, given to the Clerks recruited prior to June 6, 1980. For future recruitments, the pay scale of Rs. 400-660 was kept at par with the State Govt. Further, revision of pay scale w. e. f. January 1, 1986 was a replacement of Pay Scales then existing. The pay scale of clerks recruited in the scale of Rs. 400-660 had been revised to Rs. 950-1500 and the personal scale of the Clerks recruited prior to June 6, 1980 viz. Rs. 420-700 had been revised to Rs. 12002040, as a measure of personal pay, keeping in view the definition of terms of existing pay scales as provided in Rule 3 (2) of the Haryana Civil Services Pay Rule, 1987, which reads thus : "existing scale" in relation to a Government employee means the present scale applicable to the post held by the Government employee, or, as the case may be, personal scale applicable to him, as on January 1, 1986, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity. " The petitioners, who were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600 were, thus, not entitled to the revised scale of Rs. 1200-2040 granted as a measure of personal scale of certain Clerks who were recruited in the better scale prior to June 6, 1980.

(3.) IN the context of the averments made in the written statement, as have been, fully detailed above. Mr. Mohunta, learned counsel representing the appellant-University, vehemently contends that the Clerks, who came to be appointed after June 6, 1980 and those who were already in service prior to that, constitute different classes and that being so, there was no discrimination involved in granting different pay scale to them. With a view to appreciate the contention raised by learned counsel, it requires to be highlighted that the clerks, who were employed prior to June 6, 1980 with the appellant-University were getting their pay in the pay scale of Rs. 120-300 whereas the Clerks, who were working in the State Government were getting the pay scale of Rs. 110-225. The Clerks working in the University were, thus, getting higher pay scale than their counterparts employed with the State Government. With a view to bring parity between the Clerks employed by the appellant-University and the State Government with regard to their pay scales, a decision was taken by the University vide its resolution dated December 26, 1979. In the resolution aforesaid it was decided that linkage of pay scales with the State Government for all non-teaching posts shall be maintained. This decision obviously was not subject matter of challenge at any stage, least in the writ petition culminating into grant of pay scale to the petitioners as desired by them. The obvious result of this linkage was that the pay scale of the Clerks of the appellant-University was to go down. Those, who were already working on the posts of Clerks in the University prior to the decision taken by the University, as referred to above, could not possibly be disturbed as, under law, their pay had to be protected. In the context of the facts, as have been referred to above, in our view, it was not a case of giving a particular pay scale to the clerks already working in the University prior to the cut off date. It was, on the other hand, a case of protecting their existing pay scale, which as referred to above, could not possibly be disturbed. All those clerks, who came to be employed after the cut off date, were given the same pay scale that was equivalent to their counter-parts employed with the State Government. It goes without saying that when the petitioners came to be appointed on the post of Clerks, the pay scale then existing, i. e. at par with the pay scale given to a Clerk in the State Government was made admissible and actually paid to them. Such Clerks, i. e. the Clerks who came to be employed after the cut off date, have been paid the same pay scale. In the very nature or things, in this case two ditterent classes of Clerks came into existence, i. e. the one who came to be employed before the cut off date and the other after the said date. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work1 even though the clerks may be doing the same job and having the same responsibilities, could not possibly be invoked. The view that we have taken can well be supported from a recent decision of the Apex Court in Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Sarat Chandra Rath and Ors. (1996-I1-LLJ-913 ). The facts of the case aforesaid would reveal that the Fertiliser Corporation of India introduced a stagnation scheme for its employees. Under it, the employees in the highest workmen's pay scale, who had been stagnating for seven years, were permitted to the lowest officer' scale. A pay revision settlement followed. The revised pay scales fixed were to be effective from January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1986, the highest scale of workman being Rs. 915-1520. It was also provided that the employees promoted under stagnation scheme were only to be placed (not promoted) from their existing scale of Rs. 915-1520 to the lowest officers' scale of Rs 960-1610 and on such placement they were to be given the designation of Junior Foreman (W ). As a result of the settlement, there were, as on December 31, 1986, employees who had already undergone placement from the highest worker's scale of Rs. 915-1520 to the lowest officer's scale of Rs. 960-1610 on account of the fact that they had fulfilled the eligibility conditions under the seven years stagnation scheme on some dates before December 31, 1986. However, workmen, like the respondents who had not fulfilled the aforesaid eligibility conditions under the stagnation scheme as on December 31, 1986 continued to remain in the workman's category, as on that day, in the pay scale of Rs. 915-1520. The respondents fulfilled the eligibility conditions under the seven years stagnation scheme on December 1, 1987. By office memorandum dated November 7, 1987, these respondents were placed in the officer's pay scale of Rs. 960-1610/- w. e. f. September 1, 1987. As the pay revision settlement was to expire on December 31, 1986, a new wage settlement had to be made to be effective from January 1, 1987. The wage settlement of workmen took place much earlier than the settlement as regards officer. Both settlements were made effective from January 1, 1987. The Rules for revision of pay scale of officers stipulated different methods for fixation of pay of such of the employees who have been promoted from the highest category of workmen to the junior most category of officers on or after January 1, 1987 and for officers promoted before January 1, 1987. On the fact, as have been fully detailed above, Supreme Court held that, the two categories of Junior Foreman (W) were dealt with by two different sets of Rules because as on January 1, 1987, they were not similarly situate. Whereas, the respondents were Assistant Foreman, those who were placed in the officers grade prior to January 1, 1987, were regraded as officers. There could, thus, be no comparison between these two categories of persons. These two categories were unequal and respondents could not, in law, make any grievance if different principles were adopted in fixation of their respective pay scales. It was further held that the respondents as on January 1, 1987 had not acquired the officers' grade and were working as Assistant Foreman. On the other hand, those of the workers who were in the highest grade and had been placed in the lowest scale of the officers grade had by January 1, 1987 already acquired the officers' grade. These two categories of employees, keeping in view their designation as well as the pay scales which they actually were drawing as on January 1, 1987, were clearly in different classes. "as mentioned above, petitioners came into service only after June 6, 1980. On their being absorbed in the service, a particular pay scale which was equivalent to the pay scale admissible to a Clerk in the State Government, was given to them. Those, who were working prior to June 6 1980, were already getting a higher pay scale. The pay scale of such employees who were already in service could not possibly be reduced but that principle of pay protection could not possibly apply to the petitioners, who were not even in service on the date when pay scales were revised and linked with the pay scale admissible to a Clerk employed with the State Government. Even though, therefore, the Clerks of both these categories may be doing the same job and having the same responsibilities they formed two different classes and therefore, the question of there being any discrimination does not arise.