Dr.R.Hampaiah v. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh

TIIP HOIT'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI IIPIIRTSH KI,UIIR SIITGE IIND TIIE HOIT'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOIIIITDDIIT WRIT PETITION No.8235 of2OL7 DATE:29.L2.2O25 BETWEEN: Dr.R.Hampaiah State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 others AND ORDER ....Petitioner ....Respondents Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.R.S. Associates appearing for the petitioner; Sri.B.Rajeshwar Reddy, leamed Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos-l and 5 and Smt.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of tl:e Constitution of India, with the following prayer viz., to issne an ord.er or diredbn more pantiaianTg one in tle rature of Writ of il{ANDAMUS (Q dalarc the aaion of the reqondents in tan- ryiementdbn of 6h Pay C.ommission to reuise the pag of tle petitioncr in tle adre of Ctuitmaa Biodiuersity tuard i.e., Rs.8O,OOO/' (instuon of Rs-2fi,OOO/' fiom O1.O1.2OO6) <rs unts done in tle a.* of other similady siatded. persons of tle Central Gouernmerrt/other States like Gujarat, Uttarkhand and Karnafalco fiom 3O.5.2OO6 till date of retircne.nt 31.1.2015 utith all unseqttential bencfits and. trr;.t takitrg ang adbn on 2 the r:prcsentations and tdest reptesentation of the petitioner to fu his paA in terms of @ Pag C.ommission pag S@les, is illegat, arbitrary, disaiminatory, uiolathrc ol kineiptes of Naturat &tstirE and. @ntrary to Art 1,1, 16 and.21 of tl.ie @nstih.ttiott of India;.and (b) @nseE@n ly dired the respondents to @nsider the (r,si of pefrtioner to retise andfu his pag sa)e as per 6n pag hmmission from the date of his apoilfinenr Le., Rs.BO,OOO/ - ut.e.f., 3O.05.20O6 till ampletion oJ Its term Le., on 31.O1.2OI5 and. pay att onseqtential benefits and pass such other and. fuither irder or ord.ets as this Honbte Court nag deem fit and, proper in tte ciranm.stances of tle @.se. Eactual mrtrlx lin brteO

3. The petitioner a distinguished agronomist, possessing a ph.D. (Agronomy) from Indian Agricuttural Research Institute, Delhi, has held vario'us positions in governmental, research, and international organizati{)ns prior to his association with the State Biodiversit5r Board

4. The Biological Diversit5r Act, 2OO2 (for short tsiodiversit5r Actl under Section 8 thereof provided for setting up a National Biodiversily Authority. The Biodiversigr Act arso . provided for establishment of state Biodiversity Board under section 22 for implemeniation of various provisions of the Act.

5. The petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Ahdhra Pradesh sitate Biodiversi$r Board ur'de G.o.Ms.No.6g, Environment Forests, Science and Technologr (for{I) Department dated 11.05.2006 and assurned charge on 20.05.20O6, and continued as Chairman of the State Biodiversi$r Board fcir successive terms under ..!.. extensions grant€d by the competent autlrority, covering the period from 20.05.20,06 to 31.01 .2Ol-5.

6. The Biological Diversidr Rules, 2OO4 (for short Rules 2OO4) originally prescribed a fixed pay of RS.26,OOO l- for the Chairperson, under Rules 5(1). Fotlowing the ac-ceptance of the recotmtendations of tlre 6e Central Pay Commission with effect from Jarruar5r, 2006, the fixed pay of Rs.26,OOO/- stood revised to Rs.8O,OOO l' tn ttre Central Government revised pay scales.

7. During the tenure of the petitioner as Chairman, remuneration was paid in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.S7, dated O5.O2.2O09, under which a fixed pay of Rs.44,OOO / - per month was sanctioned. The said pay continued to be drawn by the petitioner until completion of his tenure.

8. The Government of Andhra Pradesh uide G.O.Ms.No-57, Environment Forests, Science and Technolory for{I} Department dated O5.O2.2OO9 extended the pay and allowances to ttre petitioner with the pay and allowances on par with the Chairmal, Kerala Biodiversity Board, Government of Kerala@ Rs.40,OOOl- Wt month- g. Rule 2(d) of the Rules 2OO4 d.e{ines the term "Chairperson" to include the Chairperson of the National Biodiversity Authorit5r and, as the case may be, the Chairperson of a State Biodiversity Board. In this context, the Government of India issued a clarifi.cation dated 4 O2.O9.2OOA regarding the applicability of pay and ailowances presaribed. under the Rules. 1(}. The record indicates that, during the year 2O1O and 2O11, the Member Secretaqr of the State Biodiversi$r Board, addressed communications to the state Government seeking consideration of revision o,: the pay of the petitioner-Chairman of Biodiversigr Board with reference to ttre pay structure applieable to the Nationar Biodiversity Authority and State Biodiversit5r Boards in other states. No linal orders were passed on the said communications.

11. Ther.-eafter, representations were submitted by the petitioner to the authc,rities of the successor States of Andhra pradesh and Tela'gana seeking revision of palr and aflowances. The petitioner completed his tenure as Chairman on 3tr.Ol.2OlS without any modificati tn to tJre pay str.ucture earlier sanetioned. L2. Accordingly, the petitioner has frled the present writ petition seeking ju.dicial scrutiny of the issue reLating to fixation of pay and the grant of consequential beneEts for the period during which the petitioner served as Chairman of the State Biodiversit5r Board. of,the petitiollCr

13. Learned Senior Counsel for tJre petitioner raised the following <:ontentions : ..(..

1. That this writ petition is directed against the inaction and omission on the part of the respondents in not implementing the 66 Pay Comrnission recommendati,ons so as to revise and fix the pay of the petitioner in the cadre of Chairman, State Biodiversity Board for the period from 31.05.20O6 to

31.01.2015, despite such revision having been extended to under the Central similarly situated Government and ottrer State Governments in aeordance with the Biodiversigr Act. ii. That the petitioner was paid only Rs.44,OO0/- per month under G.O.Rt.No.S7 dated O5.O2.2OO7, even though the Member Secretar5r working under him was drawing higher pay and allowances, leading to an anomalous and irrational situation, inconsistent with administrative hierarchy and service jurisprudence. iii. As a matter of fact, the Special Chief Secretar5r to Government, Department of Environment, Forests, Science & Technologr, Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded permission to extend the pay and allowances to the Chairman of ttre Andhra Pradesh .State Biodiversit5r Board on par with the terms and conditions that are followed by the Government of Kerala, vide G.O.Rt.No.57, dated O5.O2.2OO9. The Chairman, Kerala State Board was drawing a pay of Rs.4O,OOO/- per 6 month plus RS.4,OOO/- per month, which is equal to Rs,44,OOO/- pgr rnonlh, Though th9 s{q{ t-he Chairman of "f Kerala State Biodiversigr Board and also of Gujarat and Uttaraktrand were revisid to the scale of Rs.8O,OOO/- per month plus allowanccs in service, as per the the Member Secretar5r, Andhra pradesh State Biodiversigr Boa.rd to the Special Chief Secretary to of Envirronment, Forests, Science & Govr:rnment of Andhra Pradesh vide letter dated 16.12.2O1 1 with a request for fixation of pay and allowances to Chairman, And hra Pradesh State Biodiversigr Board, the pay and allelvsns6. of the petitioner was not revised at par with the Chairman of Kerala State Biodiversigr Board and as per the Sixt.h Pay Revision. lV Thar: the post of State Board is a higt. statutory oftice under Section 22 of Biodiversigr Act, carryrng significant regulatory, supervisory, and that tJre said post is representational equJvalent in status, responsibility, and functional importance to that of a Secretar5r to the Government or Chairpersons of other statutory and regulatory commissions, thereby entitling the petitioner to com.mensurate pay and allowances. v That the petitioner possessed exceptional academic credentials and professional ercperience, including a Ph.D. in Agronomy suctr qualiEcations and experierrce were the very basis for his appointment as Chairman and the qualiEcations of the petitioner togettrer with the strategic role and responsibilities of the post further strengthen the petitioner's entitlement to ttre revised pay structure applicable to the post. That as per tJre clarification issued by the Government of lndia uidc letter dated O2.O9.2OO8, read with Rule 2(d) of t}te Rules 2004, the pay and allowances prescribed for the Chairperson of the National Biodiversit5r Authorit5r are equally applicable to tJ'..e Chairperson of a State Biodiversity Board. Thus, the statutory framework unequivocal.ly mandates parity in emoluments, leaving no discretion with. the respondents to derry the saroe to the petitioner. vn. That. the chairmen of State Biodiversit5r Boards in other States, including Gujarat, Kerala, and Uttaraktrarrd, and the Chairman of the National Biodiversity Authority have been granted RS.8O,OOO/- with allowances pursuant to the revisions under the 6th Pay Commission; denial of the sarne benelit to the petitioner, despite repeated oflicial recommendations, amounts to hostile discrimination. 8 The impugned action is arbitrar5r and discriminatory, violating ,Articles 14 and 16 o-f the Constitution of India and the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work', and further offerrds Article 21 by denying the petitioner dignified and fair remuneration despite discharge of high statutory duties. ix. That despite repeated representations by the petitioner and the Member Secretar5r- the respondents failed to pass any order, rendering their inaction arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Conteations of the resooDdents 14. [ea:'ned Government pleader appearing for the respondents raised, the following contentions hereunder: i. That the post of Chairman of tlle Andhra pradesh State Biocliversit5r Board is a statutory, tenure-based appointment, govc:rned exclusively by the provisions of the Biodiversit5r Act whir:h does not constitute a civit post under the State in tJ:e con'rentional sense. ii. That the appointment is not part of the regular State service, nor is it borne on any cadre to which the genenal service rules or pay revision mechanisms automatically apply. iii. That, under Rule 5 of the Andhra pradesh Biological Divt:rsigr Rules, 2OO9, the pay and allowances of the Chairperson are to be determined by the State Government, ri9 and the Rule does not provide for automatic application of C,entral or State Pay Commission recommendations; consequently, the 66 Pay Commission, being applicable to regr:lar civil posts, dires not extend ipso facta to statutory appointrnents unless expressly adopted by the State ttrough a specific order or notifetion. lv. That in the absence of any statutory mandate or express Govemment Order extending the 6th Pay Commission scales to tlre Chairperson of the State Biodiversit5r Board, the petitioner cannot cl,aim revision of pay as a matter of right; that fixation of pay at Rs.44,OOO/- per month, as sanctioned under G.O.Rt.No.S7 dated O5.O2.2OO7, was in consonance with the prevailing Rules and validly determined by the competent authority. v That ttre petitioner's reliance on pay structures applicable to the Chairperson of tJre National Biodiversity Authorit5r or to Chairpersons of Biodiversity Boards in other States is misplaced, as each State Biodiversity Board operates under its respective statutory rules and executive decisions, and no uniform pay structure is mandated under the Biodiversity Act. That mere proposals or representations seeking revision of pay, in the absence of State Government approval, do not ::10:: conlbr any enforceable or vested right upon tJle petitioner, and tl:at the cl{m for retrospectiyg pay rewision with consequential benefits is legally untenable under the govemurg statutory framework, particularly when the petitioner drew the sanctioned remuneration throughout his tentEe.

15. We have taken note of the respectirrc contentions urged.

16. In this regard, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the exclusion of the petitioner from the benefit of the revised pay strucr,ure, despite discharge of statutory functions identical to those of similarly placed Chairpersons in other States, can be sustained in law? llnalysis :tnd firrding

17. It is pertinent to note that the ollice of Chairperson of the state Biorliversit5r Board is a statutory position entrusted with significanl: responsibilities. Ttre nature of the functions diseharged under the Statute is neither ceremonial nor advisory, but executive and regulatory in character, carrJring substantial public responsibj.Iit5r.

14. It is well settled that the State, while exercising its diScretion in matterri of pay fixation, cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably. Once a :statutory post involving high-level responsibilities is 11 . . -- . cr€ated, the remuneration attached thereto is required to bear a reasonable ne>rtts with the dignity of the office and the nature of -the-tLuEeS-diSdliargett.-The -SE[C musfedt aS a moZel Employer ensuring fairness and. adequate compensation and. cannot act as a parsimonious employer in matters affecting public oflices of statutory importance

19. On perusal of the record, it indicates that Chairpersons of State Biod.iversity Boards in several other States have been ptaced in higher pay brackets corresponding to the revised pay structures, while the petitioner continued to draw a substantially lower fixed pay.

20. As it appears from the letter dated O5.O2.2OO9 bearing G.O.Rt.No.57, that the Government had accorded permission to extend pay and dlowances to the Chairman of tlre Andhra Pradesh State Biodiversity Boa.rd on pa.r with the terms and. conditions that are followed. by the Government of Kerala. However, though the pay and allowances of the Chairman of the Kerala State Biodiversi$r Board. and othbr State Biodiversity Boards like Gujarat and Uttarakhand were revised in the scale of Rs.8O,OOO/- plus allowances, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, despite the communication of the Ministry of Environm€nt, Forests, Science and Technolory, dated O2.O9.2OO8 on the subject of pay and allowances of Chairpersons would. be of the State Biodiversity Boards, failed to

2212.. allow the pay scale of Rs.8O,OOO/- plus allowances to the petitioner whos-e tenure was extended lrom tirne to time upto 31'OJ,2O1S, ig., even after attaining the age of 65 years. The petitioner in his representation dated 27.LO.2OL4 had also pointed out that the Member Siecretary working under him was getting more pay and allowances than himself. Therefore, it appears that there was no rational basis to deny tlre revised pay structure at par with the chairrnan of other State Biodiversit5r Boards like Kerala, Gujarat and Uttarakhand. 2L. In this context, the Doctrine of parit5r becomes relevant, as tJle petitloner, though similarly situated and discharging comparab)e functions under the same statutory framework, has been subjected to differential treatment without any intelrigibre basis. Article 14 of t].e constihrtion perinits classifrcation, only where it r)sts on an intelligible difierentia having a rationar nexus to ttre object sought to be achieved; however, no such rationale has been shown for exgludihg the petitioner from the benefit of pay revision while extending it to similarly placed statutory fu nctionaries elsewhere.

22. The principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work, as recognized by the Hontde Supreme Court in Dhlrendra Ctunnoli v. Sttte ::13:: of U.PI, rnandates that persrons performing identical or substantially similar duties carutot be denied padty in pay merely on the basis of the mode or source of appointment. The said pnncrple applies with equal force to statltory lPP.orntnrents where the functions, reSponsibilities,'and ".countability are co'nFarable.

23.. Ttre respondents' contention tl:at tlre petitioner's pay was "frxed" at the time of appointment cannot, by itself, operate as a bar against periodic revision, particularly where the tenure extended. over several years and coincided with implementation of a comprehensive pay revision applicable across public services, cannot remain static indefinitely when the cost of living and pay structures across governmental cadres undergo revision pursuant to Pay Commission recommendations.

24. It is to be noted that Section 2(e) of the Biological Diversity Act; 2OO2 and tJ:e Biological Diversi$r Rules, 2004, p3rticufady Rule 2(d), define the term Chairperson' to include both the Chairperson of ttre National Biodiversity Authority and the Chairperson of a State Biodiversity Board. The clarification issued by the Government of India dated O2.O9.2OO8, indicates the applicability of parity in emoluments between the two offrces, subject to the statutory framework. The letter dated O2.O9.2OO8 is extracted hereunder for ready reference: 1 lrsaol r scc 632 ::'14::' With referene to gour tetter No.14/BDB/2OO7, dated. 22.O7.O8 on tle above mentiottcd. stbject, tle urdersigned. is directed. to @ttnurni@te tlat Ru.le ? (d) on De.finitions und.er tteltutogi@t Diue;sftg Pc,r,ij|f*.,' zoo+'a"n s iinoirp"rron * ttre dnirperson of the NBA or as tle bose mog be, o.f the Statet Biodfuercitg Board. Ttuts, the Ng and. ollouta nrrus of Cluiryterson giuen in these Rutes unutd. be appliablb to tle Cluirperson ofthe SBBs as taell

25. It vrill not be out of the context to note that, the respondents, by denying tJre revised pay scale to ttre petitioner, notwithstanding tJre dischetrge of identical statutory duties and responsibilities, has resulted i.n unequal treatment offending the guarantees under Articles IZ- arad, 16(1) of the Constitution and has also irnpinged upon the Right to Dignified Remuneration implicit in Article 21, as recognizecl in settled Service Jurisprudence. Coaclusiorr

26. For the foregoing rea$ons, this Court is of the consid.ered view ttrat, the respondents were not justified in excluding the petitioner from tl:e oenefit of tJre revised pay structur€ applicable during the period of petitioner's tenure, and that tJ:e impugrred inaction is unsuStain able in law.

27. Ttre refore, the respondents are directed to revise the pay scale of the petitioner as Chairrnan of the Andhra pradesh State Biodiversit5r Board to the sarne scale of pay as per tJle Sixth pay Revision on par with the terms and conditions that are followed by ::15:: the Government of Kerala from ttre date of the G.O.Rt.No.57, dated O5.O2.2OO9, wherein the Government of Airdhra Pradesh accorded -- pb-rmiSSion-to extend the pay and dllbwances to the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Biodiversigr Board on par with that 6f the Chairman of the Kerala State Biodiversity Board tjll the end of his .,: tenure on 31.O1.2015: The admisqible pay and allowances be disbursed within a reasonable time, preferably within twelve (12) weeks from ttre date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2a. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Wtness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH, on tftis llionday, The Twenty Ninth Day Of December Two Thousand And Twenty Five ,/TRUE COPY" SD/-T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT BIEGISTRAR Z'O sEcrtet( oFFtcER To,

1. The Special chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District

2. The Special Chief Secretary to the, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

3. The Chairman, Biodiversity Board, State of Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004

4. The Chairman, Biodiversity Board, State of Telangana, 6th Floor, Chandravihar, MJ Market Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001

5. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District

6. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.... a t \

7. One CC to M/s.R.S. ASSOCIATES, Advocate:, [OPUCI I Two CCs to GP FOR STATE OF A.P, High Court for the State of A,P [OUI .. , dl- a 1 rtE s A- B2 I o t * .1r i HIGH COURT DATED i2911212O25 1 I ORDER WP.No.8;235 of 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "\Jr!