Sita Ram Barvaria and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-6) issued by respondent No. 3, whereby anomaly in the revised pay scales of the petitioners was removed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 but financial benefits thereof were granted w.e.f. 18.9.2010. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 only.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that vide communication dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P-2), respondent No. 3 recommended revision of pay scale to respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 1.1.2006, including for the post of petitioners, i.e. Accountant. He further submits that in response to the abovesaid communication Annexure P-2, respondent No. 2 wrote back to respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure P-3) wherein post of Accountant held by the petitioners was inadvertently left. The matter was reconsidered by respondent No. 3 and, vide its decision taken in the meeting held on 17.8.2010 (Annexure P-4), pay scales were revised with immediate effect. However, since post of Accountant held by the petitioners was not included in communication Annexure P-3, benefit was not granted to the petitioners. Faced with the above, respondent No. 3 again reconsidered the matter and vide agenda item No. 9 dated 2.12.2010 took the decision vide Annexure P-5. Proceedings of meeting of the board of directors held on 2.12.2010 were approved vide Annexure P-5. He also submits that in spite of the recommendations made by respondent No. 3, respondents No. 1 and 2 failed to appreciate the true factual as well as legal position available on record, while not granting revision of pay scale to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Respondent No. 3 also succumbed to the pressure of respondents No. 1 and 2, while passing impugned order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-6), which was patently illegal. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment dated 16.8.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No. 448 of 1994 (Prem Raj Giri and others v. The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another). He prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-6), by allowing this writ petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that although it was correct that respondent No. 3 repeatedly recommended the case of the petitioners for revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.2006, yet it were respondents No. 2 and 1 who restricted the benefits of revision of pay scale only from 18.9.2010. He further submits that respondent No. 2 did not grant the financial benefits to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006, because of poor financial condition of respondent No. 3-Federation. 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, present writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is a matter of record and not in dispute that respondent No. 3 repeatedly recommended the case of the petitioners for revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.2006, as done in the cases of other employees. It is also a matter of record that name of the post of the petitioners, i.e. Accountant was also included at serial No. 6 in Annexure A-1 attached with communication Annexure P-2. However, respondent No. 2, for the reasons best known to it, did not include the post of Accountant in the communication dated 15.7.2009. (Annexure P-3) whereas other 15 posts were included for revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Respondent No. 3 again took up the matter, considered the same and found claim of the petitioners to be genuine. Accordingly, a conscious decision was taken vide Annexure P-5 and relevant operative part thereof, reads as under:--

"In this connection, it may be submitted for the information of the Board that pay scales for the other category of Confed employees have been revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and it would not be fair if the pay scales for the post of Accountant are revised with immediate effect, as advised by the FD Board may therefore please consider the matter and accord its approval to refer back the matter to the Government of Haryana to reconsider the matter to grant the scales to the category of Accountants also w.e.f. 1.1.2006"

The abovesaid recommendations were sent to the State Government for its approval. However, it seems that respondent No. 1 although granted revision of pay scale to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006, yet financial benefits thereof were ordered to be paid from 18.9.2010, without disclosing any reason, whatsoever. Interestingly this time respondent No. 3 also did not raise any issue, succumbing to the unwarranted pressure of respondent No. 1 and passed the impugned communication dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-6), thereby acting against its own earlier recommendation contained in Annexure P-5.

So far as the issue of alleged financial position is concerned, not even a word has been said in any of the communications placed on record. Respondent No. 3 did not say so even in its reply filed to the present writ petition. In such a situation, it does not appeal to reason as to why the petitioners were made to suffer without there being any fault on their part. Thus, the impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities has been found to be patently illegal.

Once the anomaly was removed w.e.f. 1.1.2006, then on what basis the financial benefit arising therefrom could have been ordered to be paid from a later date, i.e. 18.9.2010, particularly when respondent No. 3 did not raise the issue of alleged poor financial condition. No reasons much less cogent reasons were forthcoming.

The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of this Court in Prem Raj Giri''s case (supra). Relevant observations in the judgment, which can be gainfully followed in the present case, reads as under:--

"Once the claim of the petitioners was found to be genuine and no fault was found with the petitioners, they should not have been denied their due claim w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The revision of pay scales was made effective from 1.1.1986. No reason, whatsoever, is forthcoming as to why the benefit of revision of pay scales was not granted to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the date from which other similarly situated employees of HAFED, were granted this benefit.

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."

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 impugned action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and discriminatory on the face of it and the same is hereby set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are declared entitled for the financial benefit of revision of pay scales right from 1.1.2006 instead of 18.9.2010. Let respondent authorities do the needful within a period of two months from today. If the needful is not done within the stipulated period, petitioners shall be entitled for the arrears of salary alongwith interest @ 9% from 1.1.2006 till the date of actual payment.

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