AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus direcƟng the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the peƟƟoners who are working as Patwaris in the Panchayat Department, Haryana from 1.1.96 as given to the Patwaris working in Revenue Department.
Brief facts in chronological order are as follows: -
1983: ApplicaƟons were invited by the Haryana State Service SelecƟon Board for appointment to the post of Revenue Patwaris. PeƟƟoners had applied for the said post.
1984-1985: PeƟƟoners were duly selected and underwent the Patwari Training Course and passed the same.
20.11.1985: Accordingly, on 20.11.1985, names of the peƟƟoners were recommended by respondent No. 4/Director Land Records to respondent No. 3 Director Panchayat Department, for appointment as Patwaris.
17.02.1986: Appointment leƩers (Annexures P-1, P-1/A) were issued to peƟƟoners and others appoinƟng them as Patwaris in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Panchayat Department. On their iniƟal appointment, peƟƟoners were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 400-660 with effect from 01.01.1985. At that stage, persons working in the Revenue Department were also geƫng the same pay scale.
01.01.1986: Subsequently, pay scale of Rs. 400-660 was revised to Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. PeƟƟoners who were working in Panchayat Department as well as Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were placed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500.
ThereaŌer, pay scales to the post of Patwaris were revised from Ɵme to Ɵme. Subsequently, peƟƟoners who were working in the Panchayat Department as well as Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590.
07.08.1998: ThereaŌer, another revision of pay scale took place in the year 1998 and pay scales of the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were revised from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from 01.01.1996, vide NoƟficaƟon dated 07.08.1998 (Annexure P-2).
1998: It is the grievance of the peƟƟoners that while revising pay scales as above, only pay scales of Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were revised; and Patwaris working in Panchayat Department/peƟƟoners were not given the benefit. Accordingly, peƟƟoners had moved representaƟon (Annexure P-3) in the year 1998 to the Director Panchayat, Haryana, Chandigarh.
1999: PeƟƟoners had moved another representaƟon (Annexure P-4) to the Director Panchayat, Haryana, seeking grant of same pay scale being given to the Patwaris in the Revenue Department.
21.01.1999: It is the case of the peƟƟoners that they came to know that Director Panchayat, Haryana, had recommended the case of the peƟƟoners for grant of pay scale claimed by the peƟƟoners to the respondent No. 1/Finance Department. However, it was subsequently discovered that the said request had been declined by the Finance Department.
10.01.2000: Present Civil Writ peƟƟon was filed by the peƟƟoners.
27.05.2002: The present writ peƟƟon was admiƩed.
23.05.2022: Subsequently, vide order dated 23.05.2022, the present writ peƟƟon was dismissed as follows: -
“PeƟƟon herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus direcƟng the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the peƟƟoners from 01.01.1996 as given to the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department.
2.PeƟƟon was admiƩed on 27.05.2002 and has been lying admiƩed ever since. When called out for hearing, learned counsel is unable to assist the Court for lack of instrucƟons. Learned counsel for the peƟƟoners states that despite aƩempts, his office could not contact the peƟƟoners.
3.It seems that by sheer effluxion of Ɵme and pendency of the writ peƟƟon for more than 20 years before this Court, either it has been rendered infructuous or even otherwise the peƟƟoners seem to have lost interest in pursuing the same.
4.In any case, it appears that even on merits, claim of the peƟƟoners is not admissible in view of the following stand taken in para No.1 of the reply, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
“1.That in the present writ peƟƟon, the peƟƟoners who are working as Patwaris in the Panchayat Department Haryana are claiming pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at par with the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department. In this regard, it is submiƩed that iniƟally, the peƟƟoners were appointed in the pay scale of Rs.400-10- 490/540-15-600-EB-20-660 with usual allowances. The pay scale was subsequently revised to Rs.950- 1500 and Rs. 3050-4590. At the Ɵme of appointment, this pay scale was accepted by the peƟƟoners. Now, State Government has revised the pay scale of Patwaris working in Revenue Department and has given them the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The claim of the peƟƟoners, who are working in Panchayat Department, for pay at par with Revenue Patwaris was examined and it was found that the duƟes of Revenue Patwaris are of ardous nature and very different from that of the peƟƟoners working in the Development and Panchayat Department. Patwaris of these two Departments are govered by separate set of statutory Rules. Moreover, promoƟonal avenues of patwaris working in the Development and Panchayat and Revenue Department are different. Thus, the peƟƟoners are not enƟtled to the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000.”
5.I am in agreement with the stand taken by the respondents as aforesaid. Neither any replicaƟon has been filed to the afore noted stand of the respondents nor any addiƟonal affidavit of any kind to controvert the same.
6.In view of the aforesaid, no grounds are made out to interfere.
7.Dismissed. “
17.03.2025: ThereaŌer, peƟƟoners had moved review applicaƟon bearing RA-CW-129 of 2025 seeking review of the said order dated 23.05.2022. Vide order dated 17.02.2026 the said review applicaƟon came to be allowed.
It is in this background that the maƩer comes up for hearing before this Court today.
It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoners that iniƟally in 1983, applicaƟons were invited by the Haryana State Service SelecƟon Board on the requisiƟon made by the Revenue Department/respondent No. 4 for appointment of Revenue Patwaris. The peƟƟoners had applied for and were appointed as Revenue Patwaris. ThereaŌer, peƟƟoners had passed the Field Patwar Training conducted by the respondents and their names were recommended for appointment as Patwari. AŌer compleƟon of training peƟƟoners were appointed as Patwaris in the pay scale of Rs. 400-660. It is submiƩed that at that Ɵme, persons working in the Revenue Department were also geƫng same pay scale as the peƟƟoners. As noted above, the said pay scale was subsequently revised to Rs. 950-1500. It is submiƩed that the peƟƟoners who were working in the Panchayat Department as well as the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were subsequently placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. Therefore, up to the year 1996, there was no disƟncƟon made in the pay scale drawn by the Patwaris whether in the Revenue Department or in the Panchayat Department.
However, vide the noƟficaƟon dated 07.08.1998 (Annexure P-2), the pay scale of the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department was revised from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 4000-6000. Ld. counsel submits that grievance of the peƟƟoners is that while revising the pay scales as above, the pay scales of the Patwaris such as the peƟƟoners who were working in the Panchayat Department, no revision was effected; and only Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were given the benefit. It is argued that the said acƟon of the respondents in not granƟng the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to the peƟƟoners with effect from 01.01.1996 is highly discriminatory. The peƟƟoners who were working in the Panchayat Department were also enƟtled to the same pay scale and could not have been treated differently in the subsequent revision of pay scale, especially in view of the fact that right since the beginning in 1985, peƟƟoners have been drawing the same pay scale as that of their counterparts. Even in the revision of pay scale which took place in the year 1996, peƟƟoners and the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department were treated similarly.
Ld. counsel submits that considering the fact that the qualificaƟons needed for appointment, nature of duƟes, and the responsibiliƟes of the Patwaris working in both the departments i.e., the Panchayat and the Revenue Departments of the Government of Haryana, are idenƟcal, such discriminaƟon could not have been made.
It is submiƩed that no reason has been given by the respondents as to why the peƟƟoners have been kept in the lower pay scale than the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department, who were treated alike in the past. It is reiterated that even now the peƟƟoners possess and are performing similar duƟes and responsibiliƟes as of Patwaris in the Revenue Department and as such there is no jusƟfiable reason to treat them differently and deny the peƟƟoners the same pay scale as has been granted to the Patwaris of the Revenue Department
It is further submiƩed that the impugned acƟon of the respondents is also arbitrary and discriminatory because some persons selected alongwith the peƟƟoners and appointed in the Panchayat Department were sent to the Revenue Department subsequently. One such example is that of Ramesh Chander S/O Goda Ram, who was given posƟng in the Panchayat Department as Patwari alongwith peƟƟoners in the year 1986 and was transferred and appointed in the Revenue Department in the year 1991. He is geƫng the Pay scale being given to the Patwaris in the Revenue Department i.e. 4000-6000 with effect 1.1.96. but similar treatment is not being given to the peƟƟoners. It is submiƩed that no change of circumstance has been pointed out by the respondents aŌer 1996/7.8.1998 jusƟfying the said difference in pay scale.
In support, ld. counsel for the peƟƟoners relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II AssociaƟon, (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 35553, wherein it is held:
“A. ConsƟtuƟon of India, ArƟcle 309, ArƟcle 14 - Equal Pay Scale -DiscriminaƟon -Pay Commission RecommendaƟon Prior to U.P. Government ResoluƟon implemenƟng recommendaƟons of Second U.P. Pay Commission Trade Tax Officers were carrying pay scale at par with other District Level Officers in other department of the State - Revised pay scale granted to trade Tax Officer is a step below to that of District Level Officer - Held that it is per se discriminatory -Trade Tax Officers are equal in rank to District Level Officers EnƟtled to pay scales at par with other District Level Officers.”
Learned counsel also relies upon judgment of this Court in CWP-14381-2020 Ɵtled as Bhuvnesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others. The relevant para is as follows:-
“(17). The State has not been able to furnish any convincing material to show that, before 02.07.2009, the peƟƟoners' duƟes and responsibiliƟes ceased to be substanƟally comparable to those of Superintendents in the six favoured offices. The general asserƟons of higher confidenƟality and "policy work" at the Secretariat level are not backed by a detailed comparaƟve analysis of duƟes. On the contrary, the admiƩed posiƟon that Superintendents are inter-transferable inter se between Departments indicates that they form one funcƟonal cadre. In these circumstances, the mid-course introducƟon of a higher 4800/5400 scale for only a segment of the same cadre and same nomenclature, leaving the rest of the Superintendents to draw a grade pay of Rs.4200 only, amounts to an irraƟonal sub-classificaƟon and offends the guarantee of equality in ArƟcles 14 and 16 as understood in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 and its progeny, which recognise "equal pay for equal work" as enforceable where unequals are not shown.”
It is contended that therefore the impugned acƟon is violaƟve of ArƟcles 14 and 16 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ peƟƟon be allowed and a writ of mandamus be issued direcƟng the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to the peƟƟoners from 01.01.1996 as given to the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department. The peƟƟoners also pray that either they may be granted the same pay scales as that of Revenue Department or they may also be transferred and appointed in the Revenue Department as they fulfill all requisite qualificaƟons, experience etc.
Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed submissions of the peƟƟoner and has submiƩed that a conscious decision was taken to revise the pay scales of the Revenue Patwaris as it was found that the duƟes of the Revenue Patwaris are much more arduous than that of the peƟƟoners. It is submiƩed that the Panchayat Patwaris such as the peƟƟoners only have to cater to their village; whereas the Revenue Patwaris have to maintain voluminous land records of several villages. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ peƟƟon be dismissed.
No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoners.
No doubt, iniƟal pay scale of the peƟƟoners as well as the Revenue Patwaris was idenƟcal. However, it is the case of the respondent-State that subsequently upon examinaƟon, it was found that the duƟes of Revenue Patwaris are of ardous nature and very different from that of the peƟƟoners working in the Development and Panchayat Department. It has also been pointed out that Patwaris of these two Departments are governed by separate set of statutory Rules. Even promoƟonal avenues of Patwaris working in the Development and Panchayat and Revenue Department are different. Thus, the peƟƟoners cannot be equated with the Patwaris working in the Revenue Department; and therefore, peƟƟoners are not enƟtled to the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000.
In this regard reference may be made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mewa Ram Kanojia vs. AIIMS, 1989, SCC, 235 wherein it has been held that the answer to the quesƟon whether two posts are equal or to carry equal pay scale depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. The equaƟon of post or equaƟon of pay must be leŌ to be determined by the execuƟve Govt. Expert bodies like the Pay Commission. This Court should not interfere with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideraƟon.
Reference may also be made to another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. J.P. Chorasia and others 1989 1 SCC 121, wherein it is held that more oŌen funcƟons of two posts may appear to be the same or similar but there may be difference in the degree in the performance. The quanƟty of work may be the same, but the quality may be different, that could not be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parƟes. The equaƟon of posts or equaƟon of pay must be leŌ to the execuƟve Government. It must be determined by the expert body like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duƟes and responsibiliƟes of the post. If there is any such determinaƟon by the Commission or CommiƩee, the Court should normally accept it.
In case of Secretary of Finance Department and others vs. West Bengal RegisteraƟon Services AssociaƟon and others 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is well seƩled that equaƟon of posts and determinaƟon of pay scale is the primary funcƟon of the ExecuƟve and not of the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluaƟon which is generally leŌ to expert bodies like Pay Commission etc. It was observed that ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors i.e. (i) method of recruitment (ii) level at which recruitment is made (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given case (iv) minimum educaƟonal/technical educaƟonal qualificaƟon required (v) avenues of promoƟons (vi) nature of duƟes and responsibiliƟes (vii) the horizontal and verƟcal relaƟvity with similar jobs (viii) public dealing (ix) saƟsfacƟon level (x) employer's capacity to pay etc. While evolving a pay structure, the horizontal and verƟcal relaƟviƟes have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promoƟon etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres.
More recently, the above-said posiƟon in law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3855 of 2007 Ɵtled as State of West Bengal and another vs. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors AssociaƟon and others, wherein it is held that: -
“15.The principles relaƟng to granƟng higher scale of pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work are well seƩled. The evaluaƟon of duƟes and responsibiliƟes of different posts and determinaƟon of the Pay scales applicable to such posts and determinaƟon of parity in duƟes and responsibiliƟes are complex execuƟve funcƟons, to be carried out by expert bodies. GranƟng parity in pay scale depends upon comparaƟve job evaluaƟon and equaƟon of posts. The principle "equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right but a consƟtuƟonal goal. It is dependent on various factors such as educaƟonal qualificaƟons, nature of the jobs, duƟes to be performed, responsibiliƟes to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment etc. Comparison merely based on designaƟon of posts is misconceived. Courts should approach such maƩers with restraint and interfere only if they are saƟsfied that the decision of the Government is patently irraƟonal, unjust and prejudicial to any parƟcular secƟon of employees. The burden to prove disparity is on the employees claiming parity vide State of U.P. v. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh, 1997(4) S.C.T. 769: (1998) 1 SCC 422; Associate Bank Officers' AssociaƟon v. State Bank of India, 1997(4) S.C.T. 790: (1998) 1 SCC 428; State of Haryana & Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff AssociaƟon, 2002(3) S.C.T. 674: (2002) 6 SCC 72; State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, 2003(4) S.C.T. 485: (2003) 6 SCC 123; S.S. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [2007 (8) SCC 299]: UƩar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Aziz Ahmad, 2009(1) S.C.T. 670: 2009 (2) SCC 606.
16.What is significant in this case is that parity is claimed by Inspectors- AMW, by seeking extension of the pay scale applicable to Inspector (CooperaƟve SocieƟes), Extension Officers (Panchayat) and KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) not on the basis that the holders of those posts were performing similar duƟes or funcƟons as Inspectors-AMW. On the other hand, the relief was claimed on the ground that prior to RPA Rules 1981, the posts in the said three reference categories, and Inspectors-AMW were all in the same pay scale (Pay Scale No. 9), and that under RPA Rules 1981, those other three categories have been given a higher Pay Scale of No. 11, while they-Inspectors-AMW - were discriminated by conƟnuing them in the Pay Scale No. 9 The Claim in the writ peƟƟon was not based on the ground that subject post and reference category posts carried similar or idenƟcal duƟes and responsibiliƟes but op the contenƟon that as the subject post holders and the holders of reference category posts who were enjoying equal pay at an earlier point of Ɵme, should be conƟnued to be given equal pay even aŌer pay revision. In other words, the parity claimed was not on the basis of equal pay for equal work, but on the basis of previous equal pay.
17.It is now well-seƩled that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one of the funcƟons of the Pay Commission is to idenƟfy the posts which deserve a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duƟes and responsibiliƟes and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts. The Pay Commission has two funcƟons; to revise the exisƟng pay scale, by recommending revised pay scales corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales and, secondly, make recommendaƟons for upgrading or downgrading posts resulƟng in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duƟes and funcƟons aƩached to those posts. Therefore, the mere fact that at an earlier point of Ɵme, two posts were carrying the same pay scale does not mean that aŌer the implementaƟon of revision in pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay scale. As noƟced above, one post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher pay scale and another post which is considered to have a proper pay scale may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay scale but not any higher pay scale. Therefore, the benefit of higher pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of the subject post and holders of reference category posts, discharge duƟes and funcƟons idenƟcal with, or similar to, each other and that the conƟnuaƟon of disparity is irraƟonal and unjust. The respondents have neither pleaded nor proved that the holders of post of Inspectors (CooperaƟve SocieƟes), Extension Officers (Panchayat) and KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) were discharging duƟes and funcƟons similar to the duƟes and funcƟons of Inspector-AMW. Hence, the prayers in the original writ peƟƟon could not have been granted. In fact, that is why the learned single Judge rightly held that whether the posts were equivalent and whether there could be parity in pay are all maƩers that have to be considered by expert bodies and the remedy of the respondent was to give a representaƟon to the concerned authority and the court cannot grant any specific scale of pay to them.”
The present case is covered by the raƟo of the aforesaid judgment which has been followed by this Court in CWP-4670-1998 Ɵtled as Darshan Lal Kapoor and others vs. State of Haryana.
Judgments relied upon by the ld. counsel for the peƟƟoners are disƟnguishable on facts and law. In any event, Law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court will prevail.
Ld. counsel for the peƟƟoners is unable to dispute or disƟnguish the above-said posiƟon in law.
In view of the aforesaid factual and legal posiƟon, the present writ peƟƟon stands dismissed.
Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of.