Hardial Singh vs Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this court by way of instant writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs. 557-1630 to Rs. 2000-3500, with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.12.1992. The facts of the case are hardly in dispute. Petitioner was appointed as Instrumentation Engineer vide order dated 11.12.1975 (Annexure P-1). As per clause 5(a) of the appointment order, Head Quarter of the petitioner was ordered to be at Chandigarh i.e. Head Office of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, petitioner kept on working in the Head Office. However, vide order dated 22.6.1991 (Annexure P-2), he was transferred to Gurdaspur. Petitioner was further transferred from Gurdaspur to Morinda vide order dated 18.7.1991 (Annexure P-3). However, in the interregnum on the recommendations of 3rd Pay Commission, State of Punjab framed its rules known as Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 ("1988 Rules" for short), circulated vide Punjab government Letter No. 10/7/88-EPI-8299 dated 9.9.1988, which were also approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab-respondent No. 2, vide its letter No. RCS/Sugar Mills/3-33/693 dated 31.1.1989, as depicted from Annexure P-6.

The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab-respondent No. 2, while working as Supervisory Officer of respondent No. 1 granted the approval vide communication Annexure P-4 dated 31.1.1989 for revision of pay scales, on the basis of recommendations of 3rd Pay Commission, qua all the employees of respondent No. 1. Rightly following the Rules of 1988, respondent No. 1 granted the revision of pay scales to its employees and some of the orders have been appended as Annexures P-5 to P-9. When the petitioner was not granted the benefit of revision of pay scale like other similarly situated employees of respondent No. 1, he represented to the competent authorities vide his representation dated 12.8.1991 (Annexure P-11). While the petitioner was trying to impress upon the competent authority for granting him the revised pay scale, as the said benefit had already been granted to other similarly situated employees, the grievance of the petitioner was found to be genuine by the competent authority. Finally, petitioner was also granted the benefit of revised pay scale vide order dated 15.4.1993 (Annexure P-10), but only with effect from 1.12.1992 and not from 1.1.1986. Rightly feeling not satisfied and having been left with no other option, petitioner has approached this court by way of present writ petition.

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. Vide order dated 31.1.1994, a Division Bench of this court admitted the writ petition for regular hearing. That is how, this court is seized of the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 has treated the petitioner in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Petitioner had never been at fault. He was appointed by respondent No. 2 himself, vide appointment order dated 11.12.1975 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner had no role to play about his place of posting. It was the exclusive domain of the employer. The fact remains that the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner were never changed nor the same could have been changed to his detriment. His transfer orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 will not adversely affect the right of the petitioner, for availing the benefit of revision of pay scale, which had already accrued in his favour even before he was transferred out of Chandigarh, vide Annexure P-2. He next contended that once the respondent authorities have rightly appreciated the genuine claim of the petitioner, while passing the order dated 15.4.1993 (Annexure P-10). Benefit of revision of pay scale ought to have been granted to the petitioner, with effect from the same date from which he was entitled to get it, i.e. 1.1.1986 instead of 1.12.1992. However, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that in view of the stand taken by respondent No. 1 in para. 14 of the written statement that Head Office employees of respondent No. 1 were not given the arrears upto 31.3.1991 while revising their pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986, he has got the instructions to say that petitioner may also not be awarded the arrears upto 1.12.1992. He concluded by submitting that entitlement of the petitioner for revision of pay scale had never been in dispute. It was only an inadvertent mistake on the part of respondent authorities that the claim of the petitioner could not be considered at the appropriate time, when other similarly situated employees of respondent No. 1 were granted the benefit of revision of pay scales. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that in view of the given fact situation of the present case, instant writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is a matter of record that accepting the recommendations of 3rd Pay Commission, State of Punjab framed the Rules of 1988. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies-respondent No. 2, while working as a Supervisory Officer of respondent No. 1, rightly accorded his approval for granting the benefit of revision of pay scales to the employees of respondent No. 1, vide communication dated 31.1.1989 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, respondent No. 1 granted the benefit of revision of pay scales to its employees, which is clear from numerous orders appended as Annexures P-5 to P-9. Claim of the petitioner for revision of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986, as a matter of fact, had never been in dispute, as such. After due consideration of the representation dated 12.8.1991 (Annexure P-11) submitted by the petitioner, Administrative Committee of respondent No. 1, in its meeting held on 9.12.1992, came to the conclusion that pay of the petitioner has to be revised in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 with effect from 1.12.1992 as per order Annexure P-10.

In this view of the admitted factual aspect of the matter, the Administrative Committee of respondent No. 1, ought to have revised the pay scale of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.12.1992. At the most, petitioner would have been denied the benefit of arrears, as the same was denied to other employees also. Such an action of respondent No. 1 would have been justified owing to its financial condition which would be relevant factor. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that petitioner was entitled for the benefit of revision of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.12.1992 and the action of the respondent authorities denying this benefit to the petitioner cannot be sustained.

Under similar circumstances, order dated 16.8.2013 was passed by this court in C.W.P. No. 448 of 1994, Prem Raj Giri and others v. Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another, wherein a similar controversy was decided in favour of the employees, like the petitioner. In Prem Raj Giri''s case (supra), the benefit of revision of pay scale was granted to the employees with effect from 1.4.1993 instead of 1.1.1986. The action of the authorities was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

The relevant observations made by this court in Prem Raj Giri''s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-

"In view of the abovesaid discussion, it is unhesitatingly held that action of the respondents making the revised pay scales effective from 1.4.1993 instead of 1.1.1986, was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory as well. Such an action on the part of the respondent authorities cannot be sustained."

The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in S. Thakur''s case (supra). The relevant observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para. 7 of the judgment, which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-

"As observed earlier, no restructuring of cadre and redistribution of posts in regard to 40 posts of Assistant Directors was involved at all so as to justify the stand of the appellants to extend the benefits of revised pay scales of Assistant Directors with effect from January 1, 1997. No other reason could be advanced by the appellants to justify their stand that the Assistant Directors were entitled to benefit of revised pay scale with effect from January 1, 1997. As the appellants were not required to undertake exercise of restructuring of cadre nor was it necessary to amend the recruitment Rules, the Assistant Directors forming part of the group of 40 to which the respondent belonged could not have been denied the benefit of revision of pay scale with effect from January 1, 1996, which benefit was awarded to other similarly situated employees with effect from January 1, 1996. As the decision to give benefit of revision of pay scale to the Assistant Directors with effect from October 1, 1997 was found to be unreasonable, unjust, arbitrary and prejudicial to the section of the employees, the Tribunal directed the appellants to grant benefit of revision of pay scale to the respondent with effect from January 1, 1996. The said decision was not found to be erroneous or illegal at all and therefore the High Court was justified in not interfering with the same while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution."

Respondent No. 1, being an instrumentality of the State, certainly falls within the ambit of the "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute this aspect of the matter. In an almost identical fact situation, this Court in Om Parkash Malik''s case (supra) held as under:-

The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that both the Board as well as the State of Haryana fall within the meaning of ''State'' as defined in Articles 12 and 36 of the Constitution of India and therefore, whatever grades the State of Haryana gives to its employees must ipso facto be given by the Board to its employees as well. The contention is that both the employers being ''State'' for the purposes of Part III and IV of the Constitution cannot be allowed to give different grades to their respective employees. I regret my inability to accept this contention as well. The Board, no doubt, is ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, as an employer it cannot be allowed to discriminate amongst its own employees because all its actions have to be judged in the light of fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Board as an employer is different from the State Government and its employees cannot be said to be State Govt. employees and for this reason, this Board as an autonomous statutory body can always have and fix pays scales for its employees which may be different from the pay scales fixed by the State government for its own employees. If the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners were to be accepted then all different autonomous bodies not only within the State but throughout the country which would fall within the ambit of article 12, cannot have different pay scales for their respective employees. I am of the view that such bodies can have their own pay scales and the mere fact that those scales are different under one authority or the other would not violate the equality clause guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.

Lastly, it was urged that the Pay Anomalies Committee constituted by the Board recommended the scale of 1350-2200 w.e.f. May 1, 1990 for the Upper Division Clerks and Typewriter Mechanics and the Board while accepting, the recommendations started giving those grades to them only w.e.f. the date recommended by the Committee and not from the date when the Board decided to revise the grands of its employees. We find force it this contention. It is not in dispute that Board decided to revise the grades of different categories of its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986 including the grades of the petitioners. It was only when some anomalies came to notice in the implementation of those revised grades that (sic) anomalies committee was constituted with a view to remove those anomalies. This committee after examining the various anomalies and obviously with a view to remove them recommended to the Board the higher pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- for the class of employees like the petitioners. If anomalies existed in the implementation of the revised grades and the same had to be removed they must necessarily be removed from the date when the grades were revised and there would be no meaning in removing an anomaly from a date subsequent to the date when the grades were revised. In other words, if new grades had to be given by way of removing an anomaly, such grades should take effect from the date when the grades were originally revised. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are justified in claiming the higher grade of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986.

Similarly, this Court in D.K. Gupta''s case (supra), while deciding a similar controversy in favour of the employees, like the petitioners herein, observed as under:-

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and noticing the grievance made in the petition, I am of the opinion that the decision of the respondents in prescribing a date other than the date which was prescribed for the employees of the State in the matter of revision of pay C.W.P. No. 12286 of 1993, 10 scales is unsustainable being discriminatory.

Once the Corporation has taken a conscious decision to equate its employees with those of the State Government in the matter of pay and which decision has not been questioned by the State, it cannot clearly limit the benefit by prescribing a date as this action would have no rationality, nor any nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

Such an artificial distinction which the State chooses to impose without any plausible explanation is therefore, declared to be arbitrary. Hence Annexure P-7 is quashed on this score.

Such an anomaly was bound to be rectified from the same date when it was created. The respondents cannot be permitted to take the benefit of their own wrong and that too at the cost of employees, against whom there was no allegation of any kind, whatsoever. In such a situation, employees like the petitioners could not have been made to suffer for the alleged bona fide mistake of the respondents."

Recapitulating the facts of the present case and respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court relied upon by this court in Prem Raj Giri''s case (supra), it is held that respondent No. 1 wrongly denied the benefit of revision of pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986. Thus, the petitioner is declared entitled for the benefit of revision of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.12.1992.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. Consequently, respondent No. 1 is directed to grant the benefit of revision of pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.12.1992. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall not be entitled for the arrears with effect from 1.1.1986 to 1.12.1992. Let this exercise be completed by respondent No. 1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued as herein above, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.