High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 6712/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Legal Reasoning
Having heard Mr. N. Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the petitione rs, Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. H. Ro hman, the learned Government Advocate, at length, this writ petition is, I think , a fit case for remanding it to the State-respondents for their re-examination. 2. Nevertheless, I may refer to the salient features of the case as projecte d by both the petitioners and the State-respondents in their affidavit-in-opposi tion for clarity. The petitioners were appointed as Constable (Wireless Operator /Wireless Technician) with the requisite qualification of 10+2 (Science) pass wi th Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the pay scale of ‘2650-5200/- along wit h other admissible allowances on various dates between 2001-2002 and 2008-2009. Prior to the recommendation of the Syllabus Committee, the requisite qualificati on for such post of Constable was HSLC with the pay scale of ‘2650-5200/- per mo nth. However, in the year 1995, the Syllabus Committee had submitted a report re commending the qualification of 10+2 (Science) Pass with Physics, Chemistry, Mat hematics. After their selection for the post, the petitioners had to undergo 39 weeks’ of Police Basic Drill & Discipline Training, which were also mandatory fo r all directly recruited Constable, ASI, CSI whereafter they would be required t o undergo pre-requisite selection criteria for upgrading of programmes, starting Grade-III Course in Police wireless operator trade. This was followed by doing either upgradation course for Police Wireless Operator Trade-II & I or under wil lingness-cum-seniority which they had to undergo for Grade-III, II & I Course in Police Wireless technician trade. The nature of their job also requires dealing with sophisticated Wireless Communication Technology System and Networks for la w and order communication including monitoring/interception of original signals/ unauthorised transmissions and also provides communication in the State in matte rs of public importance and during natural calamities like earthquake, flood, cy clones, etc. with upgrade course to increase proficiency level in respect of the trade. 3. It is also stated by the petitioners that though the petitioners have highe r qualifications with superior method of recruitment and training and higher nat ure of their duties and responsibilities vis-à-vis other employees in the Home D epartment such as Police Constable, yet the respondent authorities had arbitrari ly been paying the higher pay scale of ‘2890-5725/- to those State employees, wh o are inferior to, or more or less equivalent to the petitioners. Due to the pay disparity in the pre-revised pay scale, the petitioners are placed in the Pay B and-2 (‘5,200-20200) with Grade pay of ‘1900/-, whereas a Constable of Assam Pol ice Radio Organization (APRO) is placed at Pay Band-2 (‘5,200-20200) with Grade pay of ‘2,000/- inasmuch as fixation in the revised Pay Band and Grade Pay have been done on the basis of the pre-revised pay scale though they (the petitioners ) claimed to be far superior to that of Constable in the APRO in length of train ing, nature of job and educational qualification. 4. Furthermore, in the Assam Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010, the post of Havildar under APRO was shown at Pay Bands-2 (‘5200-20200) with Grade Pay of ‘2000/-, whereas there is neither any direct recruit of Havildar in APRO nor is there any promotion from Constable (Wireless Operator, Wireless Technician) to Havildar since as per the criteria for promotion, the next promotion post for Co nstable (Wireless Operator/Wireless Technician) is ASI i.e. when a Constable of Police (Wireless Operator/Wireless Technician) completes five years of regular service in the rank and qualifies as Grade-II in their respective trade. Again, in the Assam Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010, neither the designation nor the qualification/trade were shown i.e. Constable (Wireless Operator/Constable ( Wireless Technician. It is the case of the petitioners that even though the resp ondents had raised the minimum qualification up to 10+2 (Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics), they had not made corresponding changes in the designation and pay scale, say, up to ‘2890-5725 by overlooking the fact that they are discharging more onerous duties than that of Wire Operator in the Office of the Deputy Contr oller, Civil Defence. According to the petitioners, the respondent authorities h ave assured the petitioners time and again that their designation and pay scale would be reconsidered, but they have not done so till now. This is how this writ petition has been filed. 5. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent authorities take the st ance that the pay scale of ‘2650-5200 of the Constable Operator, Grade-III (Cons table of Police, Wireless Operator/Wireless Technician) was prescribed in the As sam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998 as per the recommendation of the Assa m Pay Commission, 1994 with effect from 1-1-1996. The pay scale of ‘2890-5725 is prescribed for Grade-II Cadres of Constable Operator (Constable of Police, Wire less, Wireless Operator/Wireless Technician), Havildar/Head Constable, etc., whe reas the petitioners are Grade-III Constable of Police, Wireless Operator/Wirele ss Technician. 6. That apart, according to the answering respondents, the designation of th e petitioners have not been shown as Constable of Police (Wireless Operator/Wire less Technician) in the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 but shown a s Constable Operator, Assam Police Radio Organization (APRO). The answering resp ondent further states that the petitioners had submitted a joint memorandum to t he Chairman, Pay Anomaly Committee, which recommended the re-designation of cert ain posts and also recommended to the Home Department to take necessary action a s recommended by the Assam Pay Commission, 2008 at page 124 of the report and in the light of the view expressed by the Pay Anomaly Committee. It is also stated therein that with regard to reconsideration of the higher pay scale to the peti tioners, it is stated therein that the Pay Anomaly Committee had recommended to increase the Grade Pay in Pay Band 1 and 2 and the Finance Department has issued the Notification dated 19-2-2011 in this behalf. The scale of pay of ‘2890-5725 and ‘2650-5200 to HSLC passed and non-HSLC Wireless Operators respectively were prescribed in accordance with the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 1 994. 7. On reading and re-reading the contents of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent authorities, I am constrained to say that the respondents are una ble to take a definite stance, and are merely indulging in the exercise of seman tics. What, however, can be inferred from their averments in the affidavit by ne cessary implication is that they are inclined to concede in principle the demand s of the petitioners, but are afraid to so perhaps to avoid any possible chain r eaction from employees of different Departments/establishments. The Assam Pay Co mmission in the Department-wise recommendation (Annexure-B) had recommended that the respective Departments might look into the demands regarding re-designation of various posts in accordance with changing times, new job requirement, duties and responsibilities etc. The Pay Anomaly Committee also recommended that the H ome Department might take necessary action regarding re-designation of certain p osts as mentioned in the petition of the petitioners as recommended by the APC, 2008 and noted that the Committee had already recommended increasing the Grade P ays of Pay Band 1 and 2 of Chapter 2. The Finance Department (Pay Research Unit) Department, Government of Assam passed the resolution vide the Notification dat ed 19-2-2011 enhancing the existing Grade Pay of Pay Band-2 from ‘1,900/- to ‘2, 100/- with effect from 1-1-2011. 8. At this stage, I may also refer to the consolidated statement with justifi cation on the anomalies of Revised Pay Structure of Officers and men of APRO in the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 submitted by the Director of Police (Commun ication), Assam, which, considering the intake qualification and in-service tech nical training, had recommended correction of the anomalies by enhancement of th e Grade-Pay @ ‘2100/-. The only ground projected by the respondent authorities f or not enhancing the pay scale of the petitioners to ‘2890-5725 from the date of their appointments and with a revised pay scale of ‘5200-20200/- under Pay Band -2 with the Grade pay of ‘2100 with effect from 1-1-2006 and for not re-designat ing of their post to Head Constable is that the post of Constable of Police (Wir eless Operator/Wireless Technician) is not shown in the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010. On a comparative reading of the affidavit filed by the res pondent authorities and the annexures enclosed therewith, it is irresistible to conclude that there is no rationality in the stance taken by them in resisting t he demands of the petitioners. In my judgment, the matter requires, therefore, f resh examination by the respondent authorities with the seriousness it deserves. This warrants the interference of this Court. 9. The respondent authorities are, accordingly, directed to re-examine the c ases of the petitioners in the light of the observations made by me elsewhere an d thereafter take a decision for payment of the pre-revised scale of pay of ‘289 0-5725 from the date of their appointment, the revised pay under Pay Band-2 of ‘ 5200-20200 with the Grade Pay of ‘2100/- with effect from 1-1-2006 and for re-de signation of their post as Head Constable in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be