AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Sikri, C.J.—Both the above-mentioned cases are inter-connected and hence they are being disposed of by this common order. For facility of reference, the facts are taken from the Letters Patent Appeal. The respondents herein are working as Junior Engineers with the appellants/State of Haryana. All these respondents except respondents No. 11 and 12 were appointed prior to 1.4.1979. The appellant-State revised the pay scales of all its employees with effect from 1.4.1979. Insofar as these respondents/Junior Engineers, who are diploma-holders, are concerned, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 525-1050/-. According to the Junior Engineers, it was the wrong pay scale given to them, as they should have been placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/-. A High-powered Anomaly Committee, which was set up for such purposes, went into the representations of the Junior Engineers as well. This Committee recommended the pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/- for diploma holder Junior Engineers. The State Government vide orders dated 1.8.1985 accepted the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee and agreed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/- to the Junior Engineers. However, at the same time, this pay scale was given with effect from 1.7.1985. The Junior Engineers wanted the placement with effect from 1.4.1979, when revision in the pay scale had taken place and the posterial date of 1.7.1985 was not acceptable to them. It is for this purpose, the respondents herein filed the writ petition claiming the relief of grant of pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/- with effect from 1.4.1979 and the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 11.1.2008. The veracity of that order is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal preferred by the State against the said judgment.
Thus, the only question in the present appeal is as to whether the respondents are entitled to the revision in the pay scale from 1.4.1979 or 1.7.1985.
A perusal of the short order passed by the learned single Judge would reflect that it is held that case is covered by the judgment dated 13.8.1999 rendered in CWP-15532-1994 vide which prayer for grant of said pay scale to Junior Engineers with effect from 1.4.1979 was allowed. Review Petition No. 241 of 2001 was also filed by the State of Haryana in the said case and the same was dismissed as well.
Before we advert to the judgment dated 13.8.1999, we would like to state the legal position on such an issue, namely, fixation of date from which the benefit is to be granted. Law on this aspect stands crystallized by authoritative pronouncements of the apex court as well as this Court in a series of judgments and it is only the principle enshrined in those judgments which is required to be recapitulated.
Whenever revision in pay scales takes place, while taking such a decision, the Government fixes the date from which the pay revision is to take place. While giving effect to the recommendations of the Pay Commissions, as accepted by the Government, many times anomalies also arise. It is also a practice/procedure adopted by the Government to appoint anomaly committees to look into the purported anomalies which are pointed out. Exercise which is done by the anomaly committee is to find out whether there is actually an anomaly in the implementation of the pay scale of a particular category. If it is so, the anomaly committee recommends giving of appropriate pay scale by removing the anomaly. Once anomaly is accepted and decision is taken to remove the same, it has to be from the same date when the pay revision takes place and not from the date when decision is taken to remove the anomaly at a later date. There can also be a situation when the pay was rightly revised corresponding to the pre revised pay scale, but on consideration of various other factors and the recommendations of anomaly committee or some other expert committee, the Government takes the decision to accord better pay scale for which justification is found for certain other reasons. In this situation, which is not a case of removal of anomalies, further revision can take place from a later date and such a date can be fixed by the Government which may not necessarily be a date on which general revision of pay scale had taken place. The afore-stated principle finds enunciation in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopaldas, in the following words:
The Rules providing for the revised pay-scales were made by the State Government as a result of the recommendation of the Pay Commission which was headed by Mr. B. P. Beri, a former Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. In the process of consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Commission and its implementation, the likelihood of various anomalies and omissions cannot be ruled out. An Anomalies Committee is normally appointed to straighten the discrepancies and deal with the omissions which might come to the notice of the Government after the initial process of pay revision. This was precisely what was done by the State of Rajasthan by issuing the fourteen notifications relating to different departments whereunder the revised pay-scales, which could not be included under the Rules, were provided and enforced. So far as the notification dated February 23, 1985 relating to the UDCs of subordinate office is concerned, it was not with a view to remove any anomaly or to make any provision for a category which was left out of the Rules. It was a notification issued as a result of the acceptance of the demand of the UDCs of the subordinate offices for grant of higher pay-scale which was given to their counterparts in the Secretariat. The High Court failed to appreciate that the factual basis for issuing the notification dated January 23, 1985 and the fourteen notifications relied upon by the High Court was entirely different. No fault could be found with the notification dated January 23, 1985 and the State Government was justified in granting revised S-10 to the respondent and other UDCs of subordinate offices with effect from February 1, 1985.
There is no quarrel about the aforesaid position in law which was accepted by counsel for both the parties before us. However, it was argued by the counsel for the State that present was not a case of removal of anomaly. On the contrary, on the demand of the respondents herein, it was decided to further revise the pay scale of the Junior Engineers'' category from Rs. 600-1100/- to Rs. 700-1250/-with effect from 1.7.1985 and, therefore, fixation of 1.7.1985 as cut off date was the prerogative of the State and could not be interfered with by the Court. Attention was drawn to orders dated 17.9.1985 passed by the Government in this behalf giving reasons for the same.
Endeavour of the counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, was that it was a case of removal of anomaly; matter was specifically referred to the anomaly committee which found anomaly in initially revising the pay scale to Rs. 525-1050/- and thereafter to Rs. 600-1100/- and suggested that the category of Junior Engineers was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/-. According to the respondents, since it was a case of removal of anomaly, the date from which revision takes place i.e. 1.4.1979 has to be adhered to.
On the facts of the present case, we have to find as to who is correct and to determine whether it is a case of further revision or it is a case of removal of anomaly. Certain facts which need to be gone into for this purpose may now be recapitulated.
As pointed out above, except two all other respondents were appointed in the year 1976-77 i.e. prior to 1.4.1979. Their pay scale at that time was Rs. 200-450/-. When their pay was revised in the year 1979 i.e. with effect from 1.4.1979, they were given the pay scale of Rs. 525-1050/-. This was the fitment pay scale of pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 200-450/-. However, thereafter on the demand of the cadre of Junior Engineers, this pay scale was revised to Rs. 600-1100/-with effect from 01.02.1981. The respondents were still not satisfied. Representation dated 12.2.1981 was made by the Diploma Engineers Association, Haryana for giving better pay scale. A perusal of the said representation reveals that they had stated that Junior Engineers holding diploma were discriminated in the grant of pay scale vis-�-vis those Junior Engineers, who were holding degrees, as the degree-holder engineers were given the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200/- on Punjab Pattern with Selection Grade Rs. 800-1400/-. This representation of the said Association was considered by referring the matter to the High-Powered Anomaly Committee and on that basis orders dated 1.8.1985 were passed acceding to the demand of pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/-, but with effect from 1.7.1985. Relevant portion of this order reads as under:-
COPY OF MEMO NO. 40/5881-7-1E DATED 1.8.1985 FROM THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY TO GOVT. HARYANA IRRIGATION DEPTT. TO THE E.I.C. CHANDIGARH
Sub - Received of pay scales of J.Es sanction of Government of Haryana is hereby accorded to the further revision of Pay scales of Junior Engineers of Irrigation Department as indicated below with effect from Ist July, 1985.
The respondents filed CWP-1484-2009, which was disposed of on January 30, 2003, by directing the State to decide the demand contained in the legal notice by passing a speaking order within three months of the receipt of the order of the Court. The Government thereafter passed orders dated 23.4.2004 stating that it was not a case of anomaly, in the following words:
On careful consideration of the matter it has been observed that the pay scale of Haryana Government employees were revised by the Haryana Government on 29.2.1980 with effect from 01.04.1979. The scale of pay of Junior Engineers was revised to Rs. 525-1050 from pre-revised scale of Rs. 200-450. Thus obviously there was no anomaly. However, the pay anomaly committee constituted by the Government considered the matter regarding anomaly - referred to it by various employees. The Anomaly Committee recommended modified scale of Rs. 700-1250 for the Junior Engineer category. The recommendations of pay anomaly committee were accepted by the Government and pay scale of Junior Engineers was further modified to Rs. 700-1250 with effect from 01.07.1985.
Further the matter was considered in view of the decision of Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12483 of 1990. S.K. Bishnoi and others Vs. State. The facts of this case are similar to that under consideration.
In this order, decision in S.K. Bishnoi (supra) is mentioned in detailed. This order further discloses us as to how it was not a case of anomaly, in the following manner:-
Where there is a loss of emoluments in the case of an employee on account of revision of pay scales, it would be in order to precisely define what would constitute an anomaly in the matter of pay scales. It can reasonably stated that an anomaly would be said to have occurred:
a. When the pay scale are revised by the Government through a general pay revision notification for all its employees and the revised scales are not prescribed in respect of some posts/departments on account of inadvertent omission.
b. When the functional pay scale prescribed for a promotion post is lower than the functional pay scale of the feeder post.
c. When there is a loss of pay in the case of an employee on account of revision of pay scales.
d. Where, on promotion, an employee draws lower emoluments than that he was drawing prior to his promotion.
e. Where the pay of senior employee gets fixed at a lower stage, as a consequence of pay revision qua a similar situated junior employee.
After considering the matter in detail including the arguments of counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that present case was not a case of anomaly. Instead a conscious decision was taken to give better pay scale to the respondents herein. Insofar as pre-revised scale of Rs. 200-450 is concerned, revised scale thereof was Rs. 525-1050/- which was given to the respondents with effect from 1.4.1979. However, they were demanding better treatment on the ground that their pay scale and that of degree-holders should be the same. Though this request was partially accepted earlier by revising the pay scale to Rs. 600-1100/- with effect from 1.2.1981, thereafter on their repeated demands, the further revision in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/- was given.
The word "Anomaly" has been defined in Webster''s New Twentieth Century Dictionary to mean "abnormality; irregularity; deviation from the regular arrangement, general rule or the usual method". Since this definition is not precise with reference to the pay scales and pay revision, it is pertinent to draw up a reasonable definition of what would constitute of an anomaly. It has been discussed by this Court in S.K. Bishnoi (supra) as a situation "where there is a loss of emoluments in the case of an employee on account of revision of pay scales." In this context, we agree with the legal position stated in the orders dated 23.4.2004 passed by the Government of Haryana as to what would constitute ''anomaly'' and the five instances given therein which already have been extracted above.
What is to be borne in mind is that the issues involved in pay revision matters are extremely complex. It has been repeatedly held by the apex court that these can be best examined and considered by the expert bodies, such as, Pay Commission and issues, such as, equality of work, nature of duties and responsibility of various posts require in-depth analysis. This principle is ingrained in State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others, and exemplified further in the case of Secretary, Finance Department and others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, . Even when the expert committee like Pay Commission goes through this exercise and gives its recommendations, while implementing those recommendations and giving fitment to various categories of employees, anomalies do take place. The State Government had constituted pay anomaly commission in the present case. Consequently, while recommending the pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/-, the Pay Commission did not observe any specific anomaly. On the other hand, it found that the diploma engineers i.e. Junior Engineers holding diploma should be brought at par with the degree-holders and this was the reason for according further revision in the pay scale. Once these significant aspects of the matter are looked into, we find that it was not a case of removal of anomaly, but grant of further revision and, therefore, the State had the prerogative to fix the date of 1.7.1985 from which this revision was to take effect.
We have gone through the judgment in CWP-15532-1994 decided on 13.8.1999, which has been followed by the learned single Judge in the instant case. In the first place, it is necessary to point out that the Single Bench has not decided the case on merits, but simply referred to the aforesaid judgment and allowed the writ petition of the respondents. That was a case of implementation of the pay revision with effect from 1.1.1986. The petitioners therein were not satisfied with the revision given to them and were asking for better pay scale which was granted with effect from 1.1.1992. The Court held that the concerned employees were entitled to revision of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 and not from 1.1.1992, following the earlier judgment in Kailash Chander vs. State of Haryana, CWP-13800-1998, decided on 2.12.1998. From the short order passed in that writ petition, it is not discernible whether it was treated a case of removal of anomaly or further revision. Be as it may, SLP was filed there-against which was dismissed on the ground of delay, leaving the question of law open. It is for this reason that in the present case, we have undertaken the exercise of dealing with the issue in greater detail.
Once we find that the case does not come within the ambit of ''anomaly'', and it was a case of further revision in the pay scale, the demand of the respondents to give the further revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1250/- with effect from 1.4.1979 would not be appropriate. We, thus, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and as a consequence, writ petition of the respondents herein is dismissed. As a result, the COCP also stands dismissed.