Bua Singh vs The State of Punjab and others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The prayer in this petition is for grant of pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 granted to Surveyors in Punjab Govt. service on the 3rd Punjab Pay Commission and duly accepted by the Govt. and notified by the PCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The petitioner is not a Punjab Govt. servant. He is an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short ''PSEB''). The petitioner was initially appointed as a work-charged Surveyor on 7.10.1982 in the Board. He was made regular Surveyor on 20.10.1994. The petitioner filed CWP No. 4754 of 1994 claiming the pay scale of a Surveyor as admissible to Punjab Government Employees holding that post. That petition was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary (Finance), PSEB to pass a speaking order on the petitioner''s representation dated 25.11.1993. As a result of those directions, the order dated 12.8.1994 has been passed rejecting the claim, against which order the petitioner is before this Court.

The petitioner''s case against the impugned order is that the Government of Punjab by notification dated 19.2.1990 in exercise of powers under Rule 3(2) (h) of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 amended the notification dated 20.1.1989 and clubbed the posts of Junior Surveyor, Surveyor and Surveyor (work-charged) and redesignated the three posts as Surveyor in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100. The petitioner, though, an employee of the P.S.E.B. has claimed the scale of Surveyor in Punjab Government on the grounds as pleaded in para 13 of the petition, which reads as follows:-

The nature of the work of the Surveyor of the Punjab Government and PSEB is absolutely similar and the rules and regulations made by the Punjab Government are applicable to the Punjab State Electricity Board as it is applicable to the Punjab State Electricity Board as it is a Unit of Punjab State Government. Therefore, the Punjab State Electricity Board can not discriminate between the Surveyor of PSEB with the Surveyor of Punjab Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. When the Punjab Government Surveyor is getting the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100, then the petitioner being employee of PSEB is also entitled to the pay scale of Punjab Government Surveyor i.e. Rs. 1200-2100.

Upon notice, the Board has filed the reply. In its reply to para 13 the Board has rebutted the assertions of para 13 of the writ petition as follows:

Contents of para 13 are wrong and denied. There is no similarity amongst the surveyors working in the State of Punjab and the employees like the petitioner. Moreover, the answering respondent is a statutory body constituted u/s 5 of Electricity Supply Act and is governed by the statutory Rules and Regulations. For fixing/revising the pay scales, the Board constitutes it is own Pay Revision Committee and revises/fixes those scales in the light of its recommendations/proposals.

In the replication filed to para 13 of the written statement the petitioner reiterates the contentions of para 13 in the following manner:-

That para 13 of the written statement is totally wrong, hence denied and contents of para No. 13 of the Writ Petition is re-asserted. Vide Annexure P-6, the respondent Board are being paid the revised pay scales to the other different categories of the Board and also ordered to be paid to the Surveyors Category and to Sh. Bua Singh, petitioner. But, uptill now the annexure P-6 has not been implemented by the respondents.

The reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the impugned order dated 12.8.1994 (P-13) is as follows:-

It has been noted that any employee cannot claim for parity with the pay scales admissible to the employees working under a different Management and it has been seen that the categories available in Punjab Government are different than the ones available in P.S.E.B. In the Punjab Government the three categories of Surveyors use to exist in different scales such as Junior Surveyor Rs. 450/800, Surveyor Rs. 400/660 and workcharge Surveyor Rs. 400/600. These have now been clubbed and redesignated as Surveyor in the scale of Rs. 1200-2100. In the case of P.S.E.B. workcharge Surveyors were working in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 400/600 which after conversion upon revision works out to be Rs. 950/1800 and this is the scale in which the applicant is presently working. The Board has further improved the scale of Rs. 950/1800 by giving an initial start of Rs. 1000/-. The Board has not revised the scales of workcharge categories (category-wise) but decided to allow the scale of the regular category where the scale and post are different the conversion scales are to be allowed which is Rs. 950/1800 for the categories enjoying pre-revised scale of Rs. 400/660 and Rs. 400/600.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an inter-office memo from the Assistant Executive Engineer, Civil Construction, P.S.E.B., Rajpura to the Executive Engineer, Civil Construction Division No. 3, P.S.E.B., Ropar dated 18.11.1992 (P-5) recommending grant of pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 to the petitioner and suggesting that in case the Punjab Government notification (P-1) has not been adopted by the Board, recommendation for adoption of the same should be forwarded to the quarters concerned. Similarly, Annexure P-6 is a memo dated 15.3.1993 from the Chief Engineer/Civil Hydel Construction, Chandigarh addressed directly to Sh. Bua Singh-petitioner with copy to the Executive Engineer CC Division No. 3, Ropar Hydel Power House, Ropar, informing that since employees of different categories are in receipt of revised pay scale, the petitioner would also be entitled to such revised pay scale. Mr. Ankit Goel, learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that these inter office communications are not binding and have no legal value. It is submitted that workcharge Surveyors in the Board were working in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600 which after conversion upon revision of pay works out to be Rs. 950-1800 with initial start of Rs. 1000/-, the scale which the petitioner was in receipt. It is pleaded that Board has not revised the scales of workcharge employees (category-wise) but decided to allow the scale of the regular category where the scale and post are different the conversion scales are to be allowed which is Rs. 950-1800. Since the Board has not clubbed the posts as done by the Punjab Government, the basic premise of the petitioner''s argument is fallacious. The petitioner cannot draw strength from the Punjab Government notification dated 19.2.1990 (P-1). He became a regular Surveyor on 20.10.1994 and even then the rules require !2 years regular service as Surveyor according to the Punjab Government order dated 14.10.1993 (P-11). By that order, sanction was accorded to Surveyors of Land and Water Preservation and Barren Land Development Department w.e.f. 1.9.1993. Admittedly, the petitioner had been workcharge Surveyor throughout and was regularized only on 20.10.1994. So far as the question of ''equal pay for equal work'' is concerned the principle would not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. The Board has its own Pay Committee, which addresses issues of pay scales. The notifications and orders of the Punjab Government do not automatically bind the Board and only such notifications would apply as are adopted by the Board.

Mr. Ankit Goel, learned counsel for the respondent-Board relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya,1 (2011) 11 S.C.C. 122 : 2011 AIR (S.C.) 897 to submit that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Article 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work, duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. He further relies upon the judgment in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Bihar Veterinary Association and others, 2 (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 60 to submit that Courts do not ordinarily upset the recommendations of expert bodies as that has a cascading effect leading to multifarious litigation, especially when financial implications are involved. Mr. Goel further relies on Harbans Lai and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,3 (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 459 to submit that a claim for equal pay can be sustained only if the impugned discrimination is within the same establishment owned by the same management. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different management or even in establishments in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master. In that case, the petitioner before the Court worked for a Corporation and claimed wages payable to his counterparts in Government service. The prayer was turned down.

The argument built by Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, learned counsel for the petitioner around the inter office memoes dated 18.11.1992 (P-5) and letter dated 15.3.1993 (P-6) as giving him a vested or accrued right to the pay scale of Surveyors in Punjab Govt. service is misplaced and deserves to be rejected. Those memos are not final decisions of the respondent-PS EB1. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition being without merit is dismissed.