State of Manipur and Others vs All Manipur Village Level Worker''s Sub-Committee and Another

N.S. Singh, J.—The Judgment and order dated 21,4.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 413 of 1996 thus allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners with a direction to the respondents (appellants herein) to amend the Recruitment Rules of Village Level Workers'' (VLWs) as in Annexure A/4 to the writ petition and allowing those Village Level Workers'' to enjoy the monthly pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from 1.6,1994 within 6 (six) months from the date of the impugned judgment and order, is the subject-matter under challenge in this writ appeals

The facts of the case in a very short compass are as follows :

The present respondents as writ petitioners filed the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 413/1996 before this court for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or any direction for amending the Recruitment Rules for the post of Village Level Workers'' as in Annexure A/4 to the writ petition in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Manipur, for enabling the Village Level Workers'' (in short VLWs) to enjoy the monthly pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from 1.6.1994, by contending, inter alia, that there are 238 VLWs in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Manipur, and they formed an association called "All Manipur Village Level Workers'' Sub-Committee", with an object to safeguard, promote and protect their service condition and that, before Revision of pay, 1990, the VLWs were enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 240-390 and after some years, the pay scale was raised to Rs. 575-1050 and thereafter, in the month of January 1990, the Govt. of Manipur had decided that the central pay scale and allowances would be implemented for the State Govt. employees with notional effect from 1.1.1986, but the actual drawal on that basis would be from 1.4.1990 vide, a related order dated 9.1.1990 as in annexure A/3 to the writ petition and, in pursuance of the said order of 9.1.1990, the VLWs were allowed to enjoy monthly pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 vide, ROP 1990 which is contrary to the related Govt. order of 9.1.1990 as in Annexure A/3. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that Fieldman in Central Govt. is an equivalent post of VLWs in Manipur and in spite of the Govt.''s decision for implementation of central pay scale, there is still glaring difference between the two posts of Fieldman in Central Govt. and VLWs in Manipur and, apart from it, the Govt. of Manipur does not follow the pay scale of the neighbouring States while implementing ROP 1990 in respect of VLWs, The petitioners also highlighted the existing pay scales of VLWs in other States with the following comparative table :-

(i) Mizoram (Trained) - Rs. 1350-2700 (ii) Assam (Trained) - Rs. 1125-2215 (iii) U.P. State (Trained) - Rs. 1200-2040 (iv) Gujarat (Trained) - Rs. 1200-2040 (v) Manipur (Trained) - Rs. 950-1500

The petitioners also gave emphasis to the service condition of Health Supervisor (Microscopist) in the Medical Department which carry the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200, the post of LDC, surveyors/the Instructor (Dress making/embroidery), the Instructor (Secretarial practice), the Refractionist in the Medical Department and the Draftsman Grade-II in the PWD which carries higher and better scale of pay than those of VLWs though their requisite educational qualifications is of only matriculation with some training experience, etc. etc. It is also further urged by the petitioners that VLWs are saddled with heavy job chart with great responsibility but they have been treated unequally in the matter of fixation of the scale of pay and no parity of scale of pay was/ is ever afforded to the VLWs with those incumbents who are holding the posts equivalent to VLWs for which they submitted representation to the Hon''ble Chief Minister of Manipur on 26.3.1990 for affording them the time scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2200 and also another representation dated 2.3.1996 to the appellants on the same subject-matter, but, nothing has come up from their end and having no alternative, the writ petitioners/respondents herein filed the writ petition.

The case of the petitioners was resisted by the State-Respondents (appellants herein) by filing, affidavit-in-opposition and contended that the time scale of pay of Rs. 240-390 of VLWs is related to the scale of pay under the related ROP Rules 1975 which was given effect from 1.1.1973 thereafter, the said scale of pay was revised to the scale of pay of Rs. 575-1050 with effect from 31.3.1982 as per the related ROP Rules, 1982 and, then the same is again raised upto Rs. 950-1500 under the related ROP, 1990. According to the State-appellants the office memorandum dated 9.1.1990 as in Annexure A/3 to the writ petition, per se cannot therefore be relied upon for working or solving any specific claims of the Govt. employees including the VLWs inasmuch as, the said office memorandum does not speak that the State Govt., shall follow and adopt the Central pay scale into but the said office memorandum dated 9.1.1990 is a communication of the acceptance of the Govt. in principle to follow the Central pattern of pay and other allowances including the DA, SCA, etc., with suitable modifications as may be required for the State by giving notional effect from 1.1.1986 but allowing actual drawal from 1.4.1990 and, for such purpose and in order to work out the decision in the proper concept, the Govt. had constituted a Pay Committee vide, order No. 2/28/89-PIC dated 9.3.1990 to examine and recommend the pay scale for the various categories of services/posts and the said Committee recommended the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500 for VLWs which they have been enjoying and prior to this revised scale of pay, they enjoyed the scale of pay of Rs. 575-1050 under the related ROP, 1982 and it is the appropriate revision of pay since many other posts which carry similar pay scale with the VLWs have also been revised to the same pay scale of Rs. 950-1050 under the related ROP, 1990. Supporting this statement and plea, the State-appellants highlighted the following illustrative cases but not the exhaustive one :-

"Sl. No. Name of Post ROP''82 ROP''90 1. LDC (Secretariat) 575-1050 950-1500 2. Field Asstt.(Agri) -do- -do- 3. Motor Mechanic (Coop) -do- -do- 4. Field Asstt. (Vety) -do- -do- 5. Gram Sevika (Social Welfare) -do- -do- 6. Radio Mechanic (DIPR -do- -do- 7. Delivery Asstt. (PCS) -do- -do-

The State-appellants also urged that the fixation of the time scale of pay of the VLWs and the related ROP, 1990 is not contrary to the said Govt. office memorandum dated 9.1.1990 and if any change is made, it shall certainly cause disparity amongst the parity maintained earlier and, apart from it, if the proposed revision of the scale of pay of VLWs from Rs. 950-1500 to Rs. 1350-2200 is accepted, the same will amount arbitrary fixation of time scale of pay of VLWs on the main ground that it will supercede rather, overrule the existing time scale of pay of Rs. 975-1540, 975-1660, Rs. 1200-1800, Rs. 1200-2040, and Rs. 1320-2040 which are the existing time scale of pay of other category of posts which had already been fixed by the expert body and implemented. It is also the case of the State-appellants that the functions And duties of those Health Supervisor (Microscopist), LDC, surveyor, instructor etc. are not comparable to that of VLWs as they belong to different categories of services and in different department also and as such there is no cogent reason for claiming that the VLWs would enjoy higher scale of pay simply on the ground that the post of VLWs are the Feeder posts of Extension officer which carries the time scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge of this court passed the impugned Judgment and order thus directing the State-appellants (respondents in the main writ petition) to amend the Recruitment Rules for the post of VLWs and allowing the VLWs to enjoy the monthly pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from 1.6.1994. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the present State-appellants filed this appeal.

Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned Advocate General for the appellants-State contended that the learned Single Judge has misappropriated very important law relating to jurisdiction of the High Court in passing the impugned judgment and order inasmuch as the High Court in directing the appellants to allow the VLWs to enjoy the monthly pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 had revised the Recruitment Rules of the VLWs which was not within the competence of the Court and, apart from it, the learned Single Judge has laid down conditions of service of the Government employees which either State Legislature in exercise of its powers under Article 309 of the Constitution or the State Government in exercise of the power under the proviso to that Article can do. It is also argued by the learned Advocate General that the claim for equal pay and the parity between the pay scale of the employees of the State and that of the Central Government are the matters to be considered by the appropriate authority and the High Court cannot play the role of the Pay Commission/expert body but the impugned judgment and order took the role of the Pay Commission/ Expert Committee which is not permissible under the accepted principle of law. According to Mr. Nandakumar Singh, learned Advocate General, Fieldman of the Central Govt. Department cannot be equated to the VLWs of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Manipur as they are governed by separate Recruitment Rules and they do not discharge similar functions and duties but the learned Single Judge had decided the case on surmise and conjecture that the nature of jobs and duties of the Fieldman of the Central Govt. Department and those of the VLWs are more or less the same while passing the impugned judgment and order. It is also argued that the educational qualification is not the job criteria for deciding the pay scale of the posts or service inasmuch as the educational qualification for the direct recruitment for the post of LDC (Secretariat) and IAS (Indian Administrative Service) is only graduate but the LDC (Secretariat) cannot claim the pay scale of an IAS officer on the ground of equity of educational qualification.

At the heading Mr. Ng. Prem Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents herein) submitted that the post of VLW is an equivalent post of Fieldman in the Central Govt. Department and the requisite qualification of Fieldman is Matriculate with a certificate of training in agricultural field, at least one year experience in agricultural firm whereas, the requisite qualification of VLWs is graduate of a recognised University or its equivalent under the related Recruitment Rules of VLWs, 1995 and that the case of the VLWs was examined by the Director of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Manipur who urged the Under Secretary, Third Pay Commission, Manipur for looking into the matter in the interest of the VLWs thus, raising the pay scale of VLWs from Rs. 950-1500 and from Rs. 1500-2200 as seen in the documents marked as Annexures A/17 and A/18 to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners also argued that the pay scale of Primary Teacher (Metric trained) for selection grade is Rs. 1640-2900 and the selection scale of graduate Teacher, Headmaster after 12 years is Rs. 2000-3425 and that the post of Fieldman in Central Government service may be taken as lower than the post of VLWs with respect to the related job chart and essential qualification, etc., but the Fieldman is enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. According to Mr. Ng. Prem Kumar Singh, learned counsel, in the matter of fixing of pay scale, the authority should seriously consider the degree of skill, strength of work, experience involved, training required, responsibility undertaken, mental and physical requirements, hazards, attendance of work and fatigue involved but the competent authority did not examine these aspects while fixing the pay scale of VLWs under the related ROP, 1990. The main contention of Mr. Ng. Prem Kumar Singh, learned counsel is that the VLWs are entitled to higher scale of pay as enjoyed by the Research Investigator of the Govt. of Manipur and the Fieldman of the Central Government and they perform the similar duties and functions and, as such, for the purpose of fixing of pay scale, it is the duty of the competent authority to consider actual duties and functions performed by the holders of the. posts. The learned counsel went on to contend that discrimination has been meted out by the competent authority towards the VLWs while fixing the time scale of pay of the VLWs and it is clear a case of violation of principle of "equal pay for equal work". Supporting his submissions and the case of the writ petitioner, the learned counsel had relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court Rendered in (1) Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2) Delhi Veterinary Association Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and (3) Swapan Kumar Choudhary and others Vs. Tapas Chakravorty and others, Mr. Ng. Prem Kumar Singh, learned counsel further contended that there is no infirmity or illegality or in correctness in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court and, as such, no interference is called for.

Now, this court is to see and examine as to whether the present appellants had made cut a case to justify the interference with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge or not and whether the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment and order in accordance with law or not on the basis of the available materials on record.

So far the Case laws cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) at the time of hearing of this case reported in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, is not applicable in the case of the present writ petitioners inasmuch as in that case of Randhir Singh (supra), the petitioner therein is a driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi administration and he demands that his scale of pay should be at least the same as the scale of pay of other drivers in the service of Delhi Administration. The scale or pay of driver/constable in Delhi Police Force is Rs. 210-270 in case of non-Matriculate and Rs. 225-300 in case of Matriculate and the scale of pay of a driver in the Railway Protection Force is Rs. 260-400 and the scale of pay of driver in non-secretariat offices in Delhi is Rs. 260-6-326-EB-8-350, the scale of pay of driver in the secretariat office in Delhi is Rs. 260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-366-EB-8-8-8-390-10-400 and the scale of pay of driver in the Office of Language Commission is Rs. 260-350 which was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver/constable in the Delhi Police Force were onerous and they perform no less ardous duties than drivers in other departments and there cannot be a slightest doubt of the driver in the Delhi Police Force and perform the same function and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. Keeping in view of this existing facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court directed the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the drivers/ constables of the Delhi Police Force at least at par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force and in that case the Supreme Court held thus :

".... It is true that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the pay commission and not for Courts but where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments, Ofcourse, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same."

Here in the case in hand, there is no material for establishing the fact that the post of VLW under the State-respondents and the post of Fieldman of the Central Government are identical and they discharge the same functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them and, apart from it, the State Government did not follow or adopt the Central pay scale in toto and, as such, the Fieldman of the Central Government cannot be equated to the VLWs of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Manipur unless the equation of such posts under the Govt. of Manipur to the posts of Fieldment of the Central Government is decided by the State Government of Manipur and apart from it, no cogent reason was assigned or given in the impugned order of 21st April, 1997 for prescribing the scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2200 for the VLWs and rather the learned Single Judge wrongly quoted the name of the parties of the case reported in AIR 1982 SC 878 as Munna Tuin, Petitioner v. District Magistrate, Lucknow and Ors., Respondents which relates to the detention of one Munna Tain under National Security Act (65 of 1980). It is not disputed that the post of VLW and the post of Fieldman are governed by different/separate Recruitment Rules.

In the case between Delhi Veterinary Association Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, so far cited and relied upon by Mr. Ng. Premkumar Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the respondents herein, the Apex Court dismissed the petition filed by the Delhi Veterinary Association with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the Fourth pay Commission to determine the pay scale of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons of Delhi and in that case the Apex Court made certain guidelines and observations on the principle of equal pay for equal work and the same is quoted below :

"5. In addition to the principle of "equal pay for equal work", the pay structure of the employees of the Government should reflect many other social values. Apart from being the dominant employer, the Government is also expected to be model employer. It has, therefore, to follow certain basic principles in fixing the pay scales of various posts and cadres in the Government service. The degree of skill, strain of work, experience involved, training required, responsibility undertaken, mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness of the task, hazard attendant on work and fatigue involved are, according to the Third Pay Commission, some of the relevant factors which should be taken into consideration in fixing pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level at which the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational and technical qualifications prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the public, avenues of promotion available and horizontal and vertical relativity with other jobs in the same service or outside are also relevant factors.

At the same time while fixing the pay scales, the paying capacity of the Government, the total financial burden which has to be borne by the general public, the disparity between the incomes of the Government employees and the incomes of those who are not in Government service and the net amount available for Government at the current taxation level, which appears to be very high when compared with other countries in the world for developmental purposes after paying the salaries and allowances to the Government servants have also to be borne in mind. These are, however, not exhaustive of the various matters which should be considered while fixing the pay scales. There may be many others including geographical considerations."

In the instant case, the expert body/Pay Commission had examined the matter and the Committee recommended the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 for VLWs which the petitioners are now enjoying and prior to this, the petitioners enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 575-1050 under POR 1982 and under ROP 1990. The present pay scale, i.e., Rs. 950-1500 has been recommended by the committee and this is the appropriate revision of pay since many other similar posts like LDC (Secretariat), Field Assistant (Agri), Field Assistant (Vety.), Gram Sevika, Motor Mechanic (Coop.), Radio Mechanic which were carrying the same scale of pay of VLWs have been revised to the same scale of Rs. 950-1050 vide, ROP, 1990 in other words, the expert body examined the matter and recommended those pay sales which have been duly accepted by the appropriate authority vide, ROP, 1999.

In our considered view, the learned Single Judge has misappreciated the observations and decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Swapan Kumar Choudhury and others (supra) thus, directing the State-appellants to amend the Recruitment Rules for the post of VLWs and allowing the VLWs to enjoy the monthly pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from 1st June, 19.94 within 6 (six) months from the date of the impugned judgment and order, At this stage, it is needless to highlight that what enhanced pay scale should be given to a particular category of service like VLW in the instant cape is within the domain of the competent authority and that laying down the norms and procedure and conditions of service of the Government employees can be done by proper legislation and such power vests upon the wisdom and domain of the competent authority as required under Article 309 of the Constitution but the same is not under the purview and domain of the Writ Court which should not have ventured in this forbidden field but the learned Single Judge of this Court had ventured in this forbidden field thus, awarding higher scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2200 to the VLWs and directing the State-appellants to amend the Recruitment Rules, for the post of VLW which according to us, the learned Single Judge awarding such higher scale of pay and directing the State-appellants to amend the Recruitment Rules is an unauthorised exercise of power and the same is not tenable in the eye of law. As discussed above we do not find any material on record for establishing the fact that the duties, functions and responsibilities of the VLWs and that of the officials like, Research Investigator of the Govt. of Manipur and Fieldman of the Central Government are identical or similar, in other words, the writ petitioners, respondents herein could not establish their case about the parity in employment and, apart from it, these categories of services are governed by separate Recruitment Rules which is not disputed by the contesting parties and, as such, the writ petitioners/VLWs could not claim identical pay scale as of right. At this stage, we further recalled a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Ors. Vs. Karnataka University and Another, wherein the Apex Court held that fixation of pay scale is the function of an expert body and the Court should interfere with the same. We are also of the view that the Court generally and ordinarily do not interfere with the matter pertaining to the fixation of pay unless there is infirmity in the decision making process of the authority concerned and unless there is violation of the related provisions of law and procedure prescribed by law. We are further of the view that the learned Single Judge of this Court exceeded its jurisdiction and power while passing the impugned judgment and order directing the State-appellants to amend the Recruitment Rules of VLWs and allowing those VLWs to enjoy higher scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2200.

For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, we are of the view that the State-appellants could make out a case to justify the interference with the impugned judgment and order dated 21st April, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 413 of 1996 and, accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed.

In the result, this writ appeal is allowed but no order as to costs.