AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bali, J.—By this common order we propose to decide 22 connected Civil Writ Petitions as concededly common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions. The learned counsel for the parties also propose that these petitions be decided by a common order. For facility of reference, facts have however, been extracted from C.W.P. 12029 of 1998.
The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Linemen and possess the qualification of Matric + 2 years I.T.I. after 1.1.1986. They were initially placed in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1300 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or from the date of joining service. The petitioners through Union represented to the Anomaly Committee for removal of anomaly and on the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee vide letter dated 7.2.1991, the Assistant Linemen were granted pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990. Aggrieved by this, Shyam Sunder and seven others Assistant Linemen challenged this order in this Court and the writ petition was al lowed vide Annexure P-2. The respondents were directed to grant pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or from the date of joining of the same by the petitioners. It is the positive case of the petitioners that the SLP filed by the Board against the aforesaid judgment of this was dismissed on 9.2.1998 (Annexure P-3). In the case of Shyam Sunder and others (supra), the respondents have even implemented the orders passed by this Court. It is the case of the petitioners that they are also working as Assistant Linemen and are claiming the same relief as they are under the same department and same Superintending Engineer. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the fact that pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 has been granted to the counter parts of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1986, but so far as the petitioners are concerned they are not being given the same pay scale from the said date and instead they have been given the scale w.e.f. 1.5.1990. Counsel representing the petitioners vehemently contends that once the pay scale was made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and said order has since even been confirmed by the Supreme Court there was no need at all for the petitioners to file this writ and as a model employer the respondents ought to have granted the said pay scale to all equally situated employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
Pursuant to notice issued" by this Court, respondents have entered defence and contested the cause of the petitioners. The basic facts that have been referred to above and in particular that claim of the co-employees of the petitioner had been allowed upto the Supreme Court has been admitted. It has, however, been pleaded that a Division bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 16541 of 1996, Akash Kapoor and others v. H.S.E.B., decided on 4.8.1997 has dismissed the claim of some employees of the Board regarding revision of pay scales, wherein the Bench has observed as follows :-
"Revision of pay scales is not an easy task. It is basically for the experts to consider and decide as to what pay scale should be sanctioned for a particular post. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. The Board has constituted Committees at different times. A committee was constituted even for the purpose of removal of anomalies which has been notified. Mathematical exactitude in these matters is difficult to attain. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it cannot be said that the action of the Board is either arbitrary or that it suffers from the vice of invidious discrimination so as to call the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Some other objections have also been raised in the written statement but it would not be relevant to mention at all the same. Inasmuch as the matter herein is covered in favour of the petitioners by the Division Bench judgment of this Court and which has even been confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and in which case similar objections were raised. It will thus be an exercise in futility to mention such grounds of defence projected in the written statement. In so far as reference by the petitioners with regard to judgment of this Court is concerned, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-2, concededly, the matter covered by the judgment aforesaid is the same as is involved in the present case. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows :-
"In the absence of any specific reason, except that of the financial burden on the Board, the petitioners are held to be entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 with effect from the date of their joining the service of the Board. Since none of the petitioners was in service as on January 1, 1986, therevised pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 is to be allowed to them from the date they entered the service of the Board. Respondents are directed to carry out this direction within three months from the date of passing of this order."
Available on record is Annexure P-3, order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court by which the SLP filed by the respondent-Board against the judgment Annexure P-2 was dismissed. Available on record is also another judgment Annexure P-5, C.W.P. 1804 of 1996 wherein similar claim of the employees of the Board was allowed on 24.4.1997. It appears that the Division Bench judgment of this Court Annexure P-2 was followed by the Hon''ble Division Bench deciding C.W.P. 1804 of 1996. The reference in the judgment is to Annexure P-5 and the learned counsel representing the parties say that it was the same as Annexure P-2 in the present case.
Even though in the written statement while opposing the claim of the petitioner reliance has been placed on Akash Kapoor and Others v. H.S.E.B. (supra), relevant part of which has already been reproduced above; during the course of arguments, learned Counsel representing the respondent-Board has not relied upon the judgment aforesaid but instead has canvassed that even though same claim was allowed in C.W.P. 592 of 1998 Satpal Singh and Others v. H.S.E.B. on 7.6.1991 by a leanred single Judge of this Court, LPA against the aforesaid judgment has been admitted. In the way, it is therefore, argured before us that the decisions as have been relied upon by the learned Counsel representing the petitioners are subject matter of adjudication by a Division Bench of this Court and therefore, either these matters should be decided by L.P.A. Bench or these matters be kept ending to await the decision in the said L.P.A we do not find any merit in the only contention of the learned Counsel representing the respondent-Board. Mere admission of an appeal in which decision Y of the learned Single Judge has been challenged cannot be cited as a precedent. Further, while deciding C.W.P. No. 592 of 1988, the learned single Judge could not refer to the decision rendered in Annexure P-2, which was decided on 22.9.1997 as also the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court wherein the SLP against the said judgment was dismissed. Obviously, decisions rendered in Annexures P-2 and P-5 are by a Division Bench of this Court and nothing at all has been pointed out from where it is possible to take a different view than the one that has been taken by two Division Bench''s of this Court. Nothing at all has also been pointed out as to why the revised pay scale should not be made applicable from the date decision was taken pursuant to the anomaly pointed out by the Committee constituted in that behalf andas to why an imaginary date was fixed from where such scales were to be made applicable.
The learned counsel representing the respondents has also pressed into service the delay in approaching this Court for the desired relief. We are on the other hand of the view that the respondents have delayed the matter beyond measures. Once he issue in hand was decided by this Court and even in the leave to appeal filed by the respondent-Board, the said decision was confirmed and was later on implemented, the respondent-Board was duty bound to follow the said decision with regard to every employee who may be equally situated. Instead, the respondent Board implemented the decision with regard to only those who were parties in the petitions referred to above. In the circumstances aforesaid, it was a legitimate expectations of the petitioners that respondent-Board would implement the decision in their case as well and if the respondent-Board has taken time or not implemented the decision with regard to the petitioners as well, it cannot be said in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court after six years.
In view of what has been said above, we allow these petitions and issue the same directions as were issued in C.W.P. No. 13360 of 1996 (Annexure P-2). These petitions are allowed with costs. The respondent-Board will pay Rs. 1000/- as costs in each petition and we further direct them to deposit the same in Haryana Legal Services Authority.
Petitions allowed.