State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Agriculture) v. The Veterinary & Animal Sciences Teachers’ Association
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Apr 2024
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, decision of learned Tribunal directing the appellant & respondent No. 2 University to release two non-compounded advance increments to the members of respondent 15 No. 1 University as incentive for their possessing M.V. Sc. Degree, cannot be sustained. There…
Judgment
pay-scales for the employees of the High court as sanctioned from time to time for the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High court and it may even now follow to grant pay-scales but is certainly not bound to follow. No law commands it to do so.
The State of Punjab was reorganised into States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. Chandigarh, to begin with, was a Union Territory and was given the status of full Statehood in 1970. Since employees of the composite States of Punjab were taken in various Departments of the State of Himachal Pradesh in order to safeguard the seniority, pay-scales etc. , the State of Himachal Pradesh followed the Punjab pattern of pay scales. After attaining the status of full statehood, High court of Himachal Pradesh formulated its own rules and regulations for its employees. It adopted the pattern of Punjab and Haryana High court rules of their employees. When Punjab and Haryana High court gave effect to certain portion of its Rules from 25/9/1985 by notification dated 23/1/1986 as a result of which redesignation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators were equated to the posts in Punjab Civil Secretariat, in the Himachal Pradesh High court similar effect was given to in its rules for its employees.
When the Punjab and Haryana High court gave effect to those rules from 23/1/1975, the State government did not agree to the recommendations of the chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh High court to follow the same suit. It is true that till now, Himachal Pradesh High court has been following the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High court and it may go on following those rules as may be amended by the punjab and Haryana High court from time to time, but certainly it is not bound to so follow. No law commands the State government to follow the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High court to the employees of the Himachal Pradesh High court. That being the position, it is not necessary for us to examine different qualifications for appointment to the posts of Translators and 14 Junior Translators that may exist between Punjab and Haryana High court and the Himachal Pradesh High court and also as to the mode of their recruitment/placement in the service.
Moreover, any change in the pay scale following Punjab and Haryana High court can set in motion chain reaction for other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation among various categories of employees. Rules of each High court have to be examined independently. There cannot be any such law that Himachal Pradesh High court has to suo motu follow the same rules as applicable to the employees working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court”. In this petition, we are not even concerned with release of revised pay-scale, but the admissibility of two non-compounded advance increments as incentive to the members of respondent No. 1 association in lieu of their M.V. Sc. Degree. As noticed earlier, neither there is any material on record to suggest that the State or respondent No. 2 are bound to release the increments that are released by the ICAR nor any submission on this point was advanced by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1. Respondent No.1’s stand alone ground of State of Himachal Pradesh/respondent No. 2 University being mandatorily bound to follow the State of Punjab pattern of pay-scales/incentives, is untenable.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, decision of learned Tribunal directing the appellant & respondent No. 2 University to release two non-compounded advance increments to the members of respondent 15 No. 1 University as incentive for their possessing M.V. Sc. Degree, cannot be sustained. There is merit in this appeal. The same is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.06.2019 passed by the learned erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2306 of 2016 is set aside. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. M.S. Ramachandra Rao Chief Justice 2nd April, 2024 (K) Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 02 Apr 2024.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.