RAJASTHAN FOREST RANGE OFFICERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks direction to provide the pay scale to the post of Ranger Gr. -I at par with the pay scale of the post of Inspector in Police Department with all consequential benefits and in that regard a challenge has also been made to the order dated 15.01.2008 by which the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents.

(2.) THE facts relevant to the present matter are that the petitioners is an association representing Ranger Gr. -I of the Forest Department. It is contended that post of Ranger Gr. -I falls under the Forest Subordinate Service Rules. Pursuant to the recommendation of the IVth Pay Commission, Ranger Gr. -I were given pay scale of 1640 -2040 which now is the pay scale of 5,500 -9000 in view of the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the post of Ranger Gr.I should have been given pay scale of 2000 -3200 on the recommendation of the IVth Pay Commission and consequent pay scale of 6500 -10500 on the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission. The ground to seek such benefit is that post of Ranger Gr.I in the Forest Department is having equivalence to he post of Inspector in the Police Department, therefore, anomaly in the pay scale so exist by giving different pay scale to Ranger Gr. -I in Forest Department and a Police Inspector in Police Department is arbitrary being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that even matter of grant of higher pay scale to Ranger Gr.I was recommended for removal of disparity by the Department itself. Even Pandey Committee made recommendation so as the Minister for Environment and Forest but none of the recommendation were then accepted by the State Government of Rajasthan rather the prayer made by the petitioner to claim parity was then turned down vide the impugned order dated 15.01.2008, whereas few State Government excepted the recommendations of Pandey Committee. According to the petitioner the impugned order dated 15.01.2008 does not take care of the fact that the two post i.e. the post of Ranger Gr.I and post of Police Inspector are having same educational qualification as well as duties, therefore, even on the ground of equal pay for equal work, the same pay was required to be given but then blindly applying the recommendation of IVth Pay Commission, Ranger Gr. -I has been given lesser pay scale than the Police Inspector. In that regard reference of Annex.1 has been given where comparison has been made by the Forest Department to show the equivalence of the posts in two department and same way even my attention was drawn regarding the recommendations made by the Forest Department in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) SO far as recommendation of Pandey Committee is concerned, pay scale of 2000 - 3200 is recommended on the ground that said pay scale has been given for the post of Inspector in Police department and Tehsildar in revenue department and mainly on that basis, said pay scale was recommended for the post of Ranger Grade I apart from this, showing duties of Ranger I to be hard. Firstly recommendation of the Committee cannot be enforced by a Court. Secondly, even it is not binding for the Government to except it in any case, rather it remains open for the Government to except it or not to except it. Thirdly, committee has not even considered as to what are the duties of a Tehsildar and of Inspector so as to make a comparison of their duties with ranger grade I other than giving statement of duties of Ranger only. In any case, recommendation of the Committee was not accepted by the Government by virtue of issuance of impugned order, wherein it is said that post of Ranger Gr.I of Forest Department is not at all comparable with the post of the Inspector in the Police Department. It has further been stated that merely on account of same educational qualification, equivalence of the pay scale can be demanded. Thus dealing with the issue entirely, the representation of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale contrary to what has been recommended by the IVth and Vth Pay Commission was turned down. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment given by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. : AIR2008SC1026 . In the aforesaid case applying the principle of equal pay for equal work it was held that if there is apparent disparity and anomaly in the pay scale, yet no corrective step is taken then the Court can direct for providing parity of pay scale. Question involved therein was in regard to the post of Radio Mechanic in Assam Rifles where parity of the pay scale was claimed with other Central Paramilitary Forces having higher pay scale of the same post. Therein even the Central Government have admitted that there was apparent disparity in the pay scale of the Radio Mechanic and looking to admission of the Central Government, the necessary order was passed for grant of parity. The case in hand is not same as has been decided in the aforesaid case because here Government has very categorically stated in the impugned order that two posts i.e. the post of Ranger Gr. -I is not at all comparable with the post of Inspector in Police Department and reasons have otherwise been given therefore the judgment in the case of Union of India does not provide any assistance to the petitioner. It is otherwise a settled preposition of law that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 should not act as expert so as to recommend the pay scale different than what has been recommended by the Pay Commission. In the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that exercise of such jurisdiction by the High Court in ordinary course is not proper. It is not even a case where two posts are having same work so as to apply principle of equal pay for equal work.