Inder Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 27/28.12.2012, Annexure P10, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of identical pay scale to the Milk Recorders under the Department of Animal Husbandry, State of Punjab as admissible to the Junior Field Investigators working in the same Department has been rejected. Brief facts are that the petitioner joined service in the respondent-Department as Milk Recorder on 9.1.1979. He retired on 31.3.2012 upon attaining the age of superannuation while serving as Junior Field Investigator.

It is pleaded that the posts of Milk Recorders were filled up in the respondent-Department for the first time in the year 1958 in the pay scale of Rs. 75-125. The prescribed qualification at that point of time was F. Sc. In the year 1968, the pay scales of Milk Recorders were revised to Rs. 130-200 and the revised qualifications prescribed were ''Matric or Higher Secondary with Science (2nd Division) with three years field experience''. The posts of Junior Field Investigators were created in the year 1971-72 with qualifications prescribed as ''Matric 2nd Division with Science'' in the pay scale of Rs. 140-300. In the year 1978, the pay scales were revised and Junior Field Investigators were granted the pay scale of Rs. 450-800 while Milk Recorders were granted the scale of Rs. 400-600. The Milk Recorders Union filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11092 of 1988 in this Court claiming pay parity between the posts of Milk Recorders and Junior Field Investigators. Such writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.12.2008 with a direction to the respondents to constitute an Expert Committee to examine the issue as regards pay parity and such Committee was to submit its recommendations to the State Government to facilitate the taking of a final decision.

During the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 11092 of 1988, the Animal Husbandry (Non-Ministerial) Class III Service Rules, 1992 (for short ''Service Rules, 1992'') were promulgated whereby the post of Junior Field Investigator was shown higher/superior to the Milk Recorders. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Field Investigators was graduate from recognized University with Economics/Statics/Maths as one of the subjects, whereas for the post of Milk Recorders, the qualifications prescribed were graduate or 10+2 in 2nd Division or Matric in Ist Division. That apart, the post of Milk Recorder was shown as a feeder cadre post for promotion to the post of Junior Field Investigator.

The Expert Committee, that had been duly constituted, in pursuance to the directions of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11092 of 1988 submitted a report on the basis of the Service Rules, 1992 and on the basis thereof, respondent No. 2 i.e. the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab rejected the claim of the Milk Recorders seeking pay parity with Junior Field Investigator vide order dated 20.7.2009, Annexure P6. At this juncture, the Milk Recorder Union again raised the issue that the Expert Committee had furnished a report without hearing the representatives of the Union and secondly, such report was never sent to the State Government and it was only at the level of the Director that the claim had been rejected. Consequently, another Expert Committee was constituted vide memo dated 12.11.2009 headed by the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab. Placed on record at Annexure P7 is the report of such second Committee, wherein a recommendation was made that in the case of such Milk Recorders, who had joined service before the coming into force of Service Rules, 1992, such employees could be considered for grant of same pay scale at par with the Junior Field Investigators. As no action was being taken in furtherance of the report submitted by the second Expert Committee, the Milk Recorders Union yet again approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 3050 of 2011 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 23.4.2012 directing the State Government to pass a final order in the matter. It is in the light of such factual backdrop that the impugned order, dated 28.12.2012, has been passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Animal Husbandry rejecting the claim of the Milk Recorders for grant of pay scale at par with the Junior Field Investigators.

Mr. CL Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has strenuously argued that the Milk Recorders as well as Junior Field Investigators have been performing similar duties i.e. milking of cattle, making visits to the villages under the Artificial Insemination Centres and would further submit that prior to promulgation of Service Rules, 1992, both the posts were even inter-transferrable. Learned counsel would submit that at a certain period of time, the qualification prescribed for the post of Milk Recorders was, in fact, higher than the Junior Field Investigators. Learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner had joined as a Milk Recorder prior to the coming into force of the Service Rules, 1992 and as such, in the light of the recommendations made by the second Expert Committee, he was entitled to the grant of identical pay scale as admissible to the Junior Field Investigator from time to time.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the considered view that the claim raised in the instant writ petition is without any merit.

The principles governing ''equal pay for equal work'' and grant of pay scale to a particular post are by now well settled. Decisions with regard to equivalence of posts, maintaining pay parity, revision of pay scales etc. lie in the sphere of policy making which, in turn, would be within the domain of the executive. In taking any such decision, relevant parameters would require to be gone into in the nature of the qualifications prescribed, method and manner of recruitment, duties, job content, degree of responsibility, financial constraints of the State Government etc. Such exercise is not to be undertaken at the hands of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are matters to be dealt with by the expert bodies like Pay Commissions, Pay Anomaly Committees. This Court would interfere in such issues only if the decision taken by the State/executive is patently, irrational and arbitrary.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.12.2012 at Annexure P10 would show that it has been noticed by the State Government that duties and responsibilities as also prescribed qualifications for the posts of Milk Recorders and Junior Field Investigators are different. Still further, Junior Field Investigator has been noticed as a promotional post from amongst the Milk Recorders. It is on the basis of valid and cogent reasoning that a view has been taken while rejecting the claim of the Milk Recorders seeking pay parity with Junior Field Investigators. There would be no basis to warrant interference in the same.

The submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim could have been considered qua such Milk Recorders like the petitioners who had joined on the post prior to Service Rules, 1992 having come into force, is also without merit. Acceptance of such a prayer would necessarily result in a situation whereby in one single cadre of Milk Recorders, two different classes would be created. It is impermissible in law to admit different pay scales to the incumbents holding the same posts and shouldering the same duties and responsibilities. 11. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.