KAILASH CHANDER HOODA S Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are working as Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors, have come up in this writ petition with the prayer that their pay scales, which have been revised vide order dated January 20, 1992, (Annexure P.3/1) w.e.f. October 1,1991, should, in fact, be revised w.e.f. January 1, 1986. The basis for the aforesaid claim may be noticed.

(2.) IT is not disputed but is rather admitted, that the posts of Assistants, Junior Auditors, Accountants and Statistical Assistants are the posts in the feeder cadre from which the promotions are made to the post of Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors. Some of the petitioners are promotees and the other are direct recruits as Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors. It is further not being disputed that prior to January 1, 1986, the pay scale of the post of Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors was higher than the posts in the feeder cadre, mentioned above. However, w.e.f. January 1, 1986, the pay scales were revised and the pay scales of the feeder cadre posts, mentioned above, were made equivalent to the pay scales of the Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors i.e Rs. 1400 -2600. The Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors through their Union represented that the posts of Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors being higher posts i.e. promotional posts their pay scales have to be higher than the pay scales of the posts of the feeder cadre. The representation was accepted and ultimately the order dated January 20, 1992 (Annexure P.3/1) was issued making the pay scales of the Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors higher than the posts in the feeder cadre. The pay scale was fixed at Rs. 1640 -2900, but this was made effective from October 1, 1991. The case of the petitioners is that, in fact this pay scale should have been revised from January 1, 1986 when the anomaly arose between the pay scales of the promotional posts and the posts in the feeder cadre. The argument being that the posts in the promotion cadre must have higher pay scale than the posts in the feeder cadre. Reliance has been placed on two Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Sunder Lal Jain v. State of Haryana etc., 1995(1) SCT 564 and Ranbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) Judicial Reports (Labour and Services) 171 : 1997(1) SCT 252 (P&H). Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that since, after considering the nature of duties etc. of the petitioners' cadre, the decision was taken to revise the pay scale of the cadre of the petitioners on October 1, 1991, that would be the date with effect from which the pay scales of the petitioners category would be revised.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been held in the aforesaid Division Bench judgments that the pay scale of the posts in the promotional cadre has to be higher than the posts in the feeder cadre. The anomaly of making the pay scales equal of the posts in the feeder cadre and the promotional cadre occurred w.e.f. January 1, 1986. If the respondents have taken their own time to remove this anomaly that should not deprive the category of the petitioners to have the higher pay scale w.e.f. the date the anomaly occurred. Supposing the petitioners had filed writ petition in this Court for the relief which was ultimately granted by the respondents w.e.f. October 1, 1991 and it this Court had taken some time to decide the matter, the decision to revise the pay scale of the promotional cadre post would be made effective from the date the anomaly had occurred. Simply because the respondents have taken a decision vide order at Annexure P. 3/1 on October 1, 1991, would not mean that the illegality which occurred on January 1, 1986 would be removed only w.e.f. the date of the decision.