SATYENDRA KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking quashment of notification contained in Memo No. 5407 Fin. Dated 3.9.2002 (Annexure -5) issued by Deputy Secretary, State of Jharkhand whereby decision has been taken to grant pay scale of Rs. 5000 -8000/ - to the Accountants working in the Treasury Office, who are appointed before 1979. However, Accountants of the Treasury appointed on compassionate ground after 1979 will be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4000 -6000/ - and will not be entitled t6 pay scale of Rs. 5000 -8000/ - w.e.f. 1.1.1996.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed on compassionate ground as Clerk on 24.4.1982 in the pay scale of Rs. 580 -860. This pay scale was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to Rs. 1200 -1800 and thereafter to Rs. 1400 -2600. It is further averred in the petition that the State has framed Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the employees working in the Treasury. These Rules were circulated vide notification No. 898 dated 31.12.1990. Post of Clerk under these Rules is to be filled up by direct recruitment as also by promotion. The post of Clerk was re -designated as Accountant vide memo No. 8026 dated 18.11.2000. Earlier there was a Directorate of Treasuries and all the Treasuries were functioning under the Directorate, However, after 1993 the administrative control of the Treasuries was brought under the control of Deputy Commissioner. Finance Department vide memo No. 47 dated 15.1.1999 clarified that there shall be no change of the service conditions of the employees earlier working in the Directorate of Treasuries. It is further stated that earlier the Government had reduced the pay scale from Rs. 1400 -2600/ - and the action of the Government was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 3063 of 1992. This writ petition was decided and Accountants of Directorate of Treasuries were allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1400 -2600/ - revised to Rs. 5000 -8000/ - and accordingly 324 persons who filed the writ petition were given this grade i.e. Rs. 5000 -8000/ - w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Petitioner is accordingly aggrieved of the impugned notification denying him the grade Rs. 5000 -8000 on the ground that he being appointed on compassionate ground after 1979, is not entitled to the pay scale mean of accountants.

(3.) PETITIONER has claimed pay scale of Rs. 5000 -8000/ - on the ground of discrimination and on the principle of equal pay for equal work. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as also such of the Accountants in the Treasury who were appointed after 1979 all constitute one category and class irrespective of their source of appointment. They are discharging same kind of duties and post occupied by them being under same designation are inter -transferable. Except the different source of appointment there is no other segregation in the cadre of service. There must be some valid ground for different treatment to persons belongs to the same class/category. Differential treatment must have some nexus with the object sought to be achieved except that there are some observations by the Fitment Appellate Committee. Respondents have not placed on record any material or valid reason to show why the petitioner or similarly situated persons i.e. the persons appointed on compassionate ground and those absorbed on being transferred from the Corporation and performing same duties should be treated differently and allowed a lower pay scale than those appointed before 1979. Constitution permits reasonable classification if it is established that there is a valid basis for creating such classification. However, Article 14 itself prohibits class discrimination. Equals can not be treated -equally and vice -versa. Petitioner was appointed in 1982 on compassionate ground. There is no allegation that he did not possess the requisite qualification or is not discharging same duties as the Accountants appointed before 1979. As a matter of fact, there is no such pleading on behalf of the respondents at all. Petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3063 of 1992. Relevant observations are recorded in para -11 which reads: