Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking that he should be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 with all the consequential benefits, Bipin Chander Negi, J.* opined that the petitioner must succeed on the principle of equal pay for equal work, as no tangible explanation had been offered by the respondents to justify the date of appointment becoming relevant for fixing different pay scales for discharging similar work in the same cadre. The Court set aside rejection orders based on the clarification dated 17-12-1991 and held that the plaintiff is entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/- with all consequential benefits. Thus, the Court quashed the clarification dated 17-12-1991 and, consequently, set aside other orders which were based on this clarification and held that the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 with all consequential benefits.
Background:
On 01-09-1989, the petitioner was appointed as a Shastri on a regular basis based on the recommendation of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. Subsequently, the petitioner joined in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules, that were notified on 24-04-1986 outlined that the essential qualification for the post of Shastri, wherein it was stated that Shastri should be be from a recognized University or Institution. Thereafter, vide notification dated 23-03-1989, the pays scale of the Shastri’s post was revised with a note appended that the scales were given as a personal measure with a stipulation that in future Masters Trained Graduate Teachers to be appointed as Language Masters. A letter dated 17-12-1991 clarified that the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 would be admissible to those Shastris who were working regularly till the issuance of Notification dated 23-03-1989 and those appointed after this date with lesser educational qualification than the Trained Graduate Teachers would be entitled to only with the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 04-09-2006, Respondent 3 informed the petitioner that the initial pay scale was not admissible to him and the petitioner was entitled to pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640. The petitioner contended that the pay scales that had been granted for discharging similar duties,merely on the basis of their date of appointment. The petitioner further stated that the Shastris appointed prior to 23-03-1989, irrespective of their educational qualifications, were getting pay scales of Rs.1640-2925, whereas post 23-03-1989, a lower pay scale was being paid to the Shastris and higher pay scale was being given to Shastris possessing B.Ed. qualification.
However, the respondent contended that, for the purpose of pay scales, the State of Himachal Pradesh generally followed the pattern of Punjab Government and the petitioner had been given pay scale as his counterparts in Punjab. It was further contended that their act of granting higher pay scale was permissible as they had prescribed a higher pay scale for a higher qualification.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that it was evident that the petitioner was discharging similar duties as his counterparts who had been appointed prior to 23-03-1989, and it was also evident that irrespective of educational qualification, the pay scale of Rs. 1640- 2925 had been accorded to all individuals appointed prior to 23-03-1989, which meant that whether a person had a B.Ed. qualification or not, they all were granted similar pay scales. Thereafter, from 23-03-1989, for the grant of higher pay scale, an appointee must have B.Ed. qualification. Hence, a pay scale was granted based on date of appointment.
The Court opined that the grant of higher scale based on educational qualification would have been justified, if the person appointed prior to 23-03-1989 would also had been granted higher pay scale based on the educational qualification. However, in the present case, prior to 23-03-1989, individuals who did not have a higher educational qualification were granted a higher pay scale. Therefore, the petitioner must succeed on the principle of equal pay for equal work, as no tangible explanation had been offered by the respondents to justify the date of appointment becoming relevant for fixing different pay scales for discharging similar work in the same cadre.
The Court after perusal of notification dated 23-03-1989, opined that it nowhere specified that a higher pay scale had to be granted to an incumbent appointed after 23-03-1989 with a B.Ed. degree and it only contained a direction to appoint incumbents to the post of Shastri in future with Masters (TGT). However, vide clarification dated 17-12-1991, it was made clear that the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925, would be granted to only those who possess educational qualification of TGT. Thus, the Court quashed the clarification dated 17-12-1991 and, consequently, set aside other orders which were based on this clarification and held that the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 with all consequential benefits.
[Narayan Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 120, decided on 02-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Bipin Chander Negi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ompal and Manish Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General
