Mussadi Lal Garg vs State of Haryana

Ajay Tewari, J.—The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Accountant in respondent No. 2-Corporation on 20.04.1979 and was promoted as Accounts Officer in April, 1990 and thereafter as Senior Accounts Officer in May, 1992 and is continuing as such. Petitioner No. 2 was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk on 6.6.1970 and was promoted as Assistant Accountant on 20.04.1972 and Accountant on 1.7.1976. Thereafter he was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer on 19.04.1990 and is continuing as such. On 19.5.88 the nomenclature of the post of Assistant Accounts Officer was changed as ''Accounts Officer'' and that of Accounts Officer as ''Senior Accounts Officer''. The Haryana Government revised the pay scales of its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the respondent-Corporation, vide Annexure P-1, also granted pay scales to its employees on the pattern of Haryana Government with a clarification in the remarks column that "if at any subsequent date, the State Government again revised the scale of their Senior Accounts Officers upwards, the same would be applicable to the Accounts Officers/Asstt. Secretary of the Corporation". The Haryana Government vide Annexure P-3 further revised the pay scales of its Accounts Officers/Senior Accounts Officers from R. 2000-3200 to 2000- 3500 in case of Accounts Officers and from 2000-3500 to Rs. 2200- 4000 in case of Senior Accounts Officers. The respondent-Corporation also considered the pay scales of its Accounts Officers/Senior Accounts Officers and decided to revise the same on the pattern of the Haryana Government. The case was sent to the Government as well as respondent No. 3 - The Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises for approval after having been approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation and the Govt. duly approved the decision of the Board of Directors but the respondent No. 3-Bureau rejected the case of the petitioners stating that their cases will be considered after the recommendations of the State Pay Commission is received. Hence this petition. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed written statement with the averment that the pay scales of the employees of the Corporation are revised from time to time as per the decision of the Board of Directors. The agenda regarding revision of pay scales of Accounts Officer and Senior Accounts Officer was discussed by the Standing Committee in their meeting held on 24.4.1995 and not on 12.6.1995 as alleged and in that meeting the proposal was postponed in order to verify factual position about the designation of the posts of the aforesaid officers before 1.1.96. It is further stated that the nomenclature of the said posts was changed as Accounts Officer and Senior Accounts Officer respectively in their own pay scale as on 19.5.1988. The agenda was approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation and sent to Government for approval and the pay scales of Accounts Officers were further revised from Rs. 2000-3200 to Rs. 2000-3500 and that of Senior Accounts Officers were revised from Rs. 2000-3500 to Rs. 2200-4000. Again agenda was put up before the Board of Directors to grant this scale to the Accounts Officers/Senior Accounts Officers at par with the similarly situated employees of the Haryana Government w.e.f. 1.5.1990 which was approved and the case was sent to the Government of Haryana as well as to respondent No. 3-Bureau for approval of the Standing Committee. The matter was discussed by the Committee in their meeting held on 24.4.95 and not on 12.6.95 as alleged and the proposal was postponed in order to verify factual position about the designation of the posts of Accounts Officers and Senior Accounts Officers before 1.1.96 and the matter was now pending with the respondent No. 3.

A separate written statement has been filed by respondent No. 3 with the averments taken therein that the Government of Haryana has constituted a High Powered Committee namely "Standing Committee on Public Enterprises" which decides the proposals for creation and upgradation of posts, their pay scales, mode of recruitments, terms and conditions of service etc. The revision of pay scales or anomalies in the pay scales of the employees of the Government are to be looked after by the State Finance Department which is applicable only to the employees of various Government departments whereas for the employees of the State Public Enterprises the decision taken by the Standing Committee is applicable. The said Committee in its meeting held on 12.6.95 decided not to consider cases of Public Enterprises regarding grant of special pay and revision of pay scales as State Pay Commission has been set up in the State and these matters were to be considered on receipt of the report of the Pay Commission. Keeping in view the decision of the Standing Committee the proposal of the petitioners have been kept pending till the report of the State Pay Commission is received.

A similar issue had come up before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and Others Vs. G.S. Uppal and Others, wherein their lordships held as follows:-

A careful examination shows that the issue was not really about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers on par with PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took place, the revised pay scales that were given to the Engineers of the State Government were also given to the engineers of the Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining the parity. What was not extended to the Corporation employees, which is the subject matter of the grievance, is the further revision by way of ''removal of anomaly in pay scales'' given to AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the State Government with effect from 1.5.1989 vide circular dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real question would be whether what is given by way of anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of State Government, should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of engineers of the Corporation. When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a class of Government servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment to the pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the pay revision extended to the government servants has already been extended to the employees of the Corporation also, it follows that any correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the government servants should also be made in the case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the pay scale which is the subject matter of the correction. It should be borne in mind that the question whether Corporation engineers were on par with PWD Engineers and should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when the pay scale revision granted to Government (PWD) engineers was extended to the corporation Engineers also with effect from 1.1.1986. That question did not again arise when the anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with reference to the Government engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of Government engineers was rectified, the rectification should apply to Corporation engineers also to maintain the parity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a single bench decision of this Court in Anil Kumar Aggarwal and another v. State of Haryana and others reported as 2009(2) SCT 452 wherein also the above referred decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court was taken into consideration and it was held that when State Government has removed an anomaly in respect of pay scale granted to its employees such anomaly should be removed in respect of pay scale granted to petitioners in same manner and from same date as in case of employees of State Government.

Resultantly in view of the above cited judicial pronouncements the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. A direction is given to respondent No. 3 to approve the grant of pay scales to the petitioners at the pattern of Haryana Government w.e.f. 1.5.1990 as approved by the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2-Corporation and the Haryana Government as well, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.