Ram Parkash Nagar vs State of Haryana

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.05.1993 (Annexure P-4), whereby the revision of pay scale was allowed to the petitioner with effect from 01.09.1993 instead of 01.05.1990, when, as a matter of fact, the anomaly in revision of pay scales was created. A writ of Mandamus is also sought directing the respondent authorities to consider the revision of pay scale of the petitioner-Unani Medical Officer at par with the Ayurvedic Medical Officers granting the petitioner same pay scale which was being granted to the Ayurvedic Medical Officers. Direction is also sought for granting benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner which was being granted to the other Unani Medical Officers possessing the equivalent qualifications.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, fairly states that since in view of the averments taken in para. 7 of the written statement to the amended writ petition, the relief of two advance increments has already been granted to the petitioner, he does not intend to press this prayer. He further submits that the only grievance of the petitioner left was that the revision of pay scale of the petitioner be directed to be made effective with effect from 01.05.1990 instead of 01.09.1993, because the petitioner had never been at fault, at any point of time.

Facts of the case are hardly in dispute. Right from 1979 till 1986, as and when the pay scales were revised, the petitioner, who was a Unani Medical Officer was equated with the Ayurvedic Medical Officers. Their pay scales were revised from time to time as under:-

Pay scale of the Unani Medical Officers was also revised again to bring them at par with the Ayurvedic Medical Officers but vide impugned order, the revision of pay scale was made effective from 01.09.1993 instead of 01.05.1990. Having been left with no other option, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 04.10.1993 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. During its pendency, the writ petition was amended and the respondents have filed their amended written statement.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, no fault of any kind whatsoever, have been alleged against the petitioners at any point of time. At every stage of revision of pay scale right from 01.04.1979 to 01.02.1986, while revising the pay scales four times, petitioner was rightly treated equal with Ayurvedic Medical Officers. Unani Medical Officer-petitioner as well as the Ayurvedic Medical Officers were in the same pay scale, when the pay scale was sought to be revised with effect from 01.05.1990. However, case of the petitioner was not considered, for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities. On representation having been made in this regard, pay scale of the petitioner was also revised, bringing him at par with the Ayurvedic Medical Officers, but the revision of pay scale was directed to be made effective from 01.09.1993 instead of 01.05.1990, without their being any kind of justification. He further submits that if at all there was any delay, it was on the part of the respondent authorities only. This is not even the allegation against the petitioner that he also contributed in causing the delay. If any proposal was to be put for due consideration of the competent authority, it was to be put up by the concerned officers of the Department, wherein petitioner had no role to play. Once the petitioner was not at fault in this regard, there was no justification with the respondent authorities to make effective the revision of the pay scales to the detriment of the petitioner, i.e. from 01.09.1993 instead of 01.05.1990. The action of the respondent authorities was arbitrary as well as discriminatory. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there was no mala fide alleged against any of the respondent authorities. The action taken by the respondent authorities was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Ultimately, the petitioner has been brought at par with the Ayurvedic Medical Officers. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

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

It is undisputed on record that in the matter of revision of pay scales, whatever action was to be taken, it was to be taken up by the respondent authorities. Petitioner had no role to play in the entire process. It is neither pleaded nor argued on behalf of the respondent State that petitioner had been at fault at any point of time. Further, entitlement of the petitioner had also not been in dispute. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the respondent authorities acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Their action has been found to be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and such an action cannot be sustained.

The respondents have admitted their mistake, while not considering the claim of the petitioner for revision of pay scale, at the same time when the pay scale of Ayurvedic Medical Officers was revised with effect from 01.05.1990. Vide impugned order, the revision of pay scale of the petitioner has also been ordered bringing him at par with the Ayurvedic Medical Officers, however, with effect from 01.09.1993 and not with effect from 01.05.1990.

Once the anomalous situation was created because of the sheer inaction on the part of the respondent authorities on 01.05.1990, while not considering the genuine claim of the petitioner for revision of pay scale at par with Ayurvedic Medical Officers, the respondent authorities cannot be allowed to take the benefit of their own wrong. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the alleged bona fide mistake committed by the respondents. Once the anomaly was created on 01.05.1990, it was expected from the respondent authorities to act reasonably rectifying their mistake and effecting the revision of pay scale in favour of the petitioner from that very date i.e. 01.05.1990 when the anomaly was created. The respondent authorities acted without jurisdiction while choosing an artificial date to their own benefit and to the detriment of the petitioner. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned action of the respondents cannot be sustained.

The matter can be tested from another angle. The impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking. Once the order passed by the respondent authorities was to entail civil consequences, it was least expected from the respondent authorities to record cogent reasons in the order. Any order without reasons would be like a body without soul. The executive authorities are expected to proceed on a just and reasonable approach while deciding the rights of the citizens. In the present case, the action taken by the respondent authorities has been found to be totally unreasonable.

The above said view taken by this Court also finds support from an order dated 16.08.2013, passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 448 of 1994 (Prem Raj Giri and others v. The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another). The relevant observations, which can be gainfully following in the present case, read 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-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.

Recapitulating the facts of the present case, it is held that although the respondent authorities rightly considered the claim of the petitioner bringing him at part with the Ayurvedic Medical Officers but the revision of pay scale was made effective arbitrarily from a later date i.e. 01.09.1993, instead of making it effective from the date it ought to have been made effective i.e. 01.05.1990. It is so said because the petitioner was due for consideration of revision of pay scales with effect from this date i.e. 01.05.1990, when the revision of pay scale of Ayurvedic Medical Officers was considered and granted. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled for revision of pay scale with effect from 01.05.1990 itself along with consequential service benefits.

No other argument 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 allowed.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.09.1993 (Annexure P-4) is ordered to be set aside to the extent it made revision of pay scales effective from 01.09.1993, which ought to have been made effective with effect from 01.05.1990. Respondent authorities are directed to calculate the arrears of salary of the petitioner, in the revised pay scale with effect from 01.05.1990 along with consequential monetary benefits and release the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the arrears of salary of the petitioner are not released in his favour within the stipulated period, he shall be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from 01.05.1990 till the date of actual payment.

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