The Agricultural Sub Inspectors of Soil & Water Conservation and Waste Land v. Punjab State & Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER LPA No. 862 of 2000 and connected cases 2 Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mohan Singla, Advocate for the appellants in LPA Nos. 862 and 1467 of 2000 and for respondents in LPA Nos. 1393 and 1394 of 2000 Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab RANJAN GOGOI, CJ. : (Oral) This order of ours will dispose of LPA Nos. 862, 1393, 1394 and 1467 of 2000 which cases have been heard afresh in terms of the remand order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 944, 945 and 946 of 2006. The relevant facts which will be required to be noticed may be set out as hereinafter. Two writ petitions (i) CWP No. 10191 of 1994 and (ii) 8103 of 1995 were filed by Agricultural Sub Inspectors of the Soil and Water Conservation Department of the State of Punjab raising a grievance that while surveyors of Soil and Water Conservation Department were granted the senior scale of pay of Rs. 1800 – 3200 on completion of 12 years of service on

1.1.1993, the Agricultural Sub Inspectors who had been equated by the Department with the Surveyors had not been granted the aforesaid benefit of senior scale on completion of the requisite years of service. Both the writ petitions were allowed on 11.2.2000 leading to the institution of LPA no. 1393 and 1394 of 2000 by the State of Punjab. LPA Nos. 862 and 1467 of 2000 have been filed by the writ petitioners seeking interference with a limited part of the order of the learned Single Judge which had made the grant of the relief in the two writ petitions subject to the decision of LPA No. 162 of 1999. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated LPA No. 862 of 2000 and connected cases 3

13.10.2004 allowed the two LPAs filed by the State i.e. 1393 and 1394 of 2000 and dismissed the two writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners i.e. 862 and 1647 of 2000. The matter was taken in appeal before the Apex Court by both the sides and the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 14.12.2010 set aside the judgment of the Division Bench in the four LPAs and remanded the matter back to this Court for a de novo consideration with a specific reference to the entitlement of the appellants. This is how we are answering the issues once again. In terms of the remand order, we are required to consider the cases only from the perspective of the entitlement of the writ petitioners to the benefit of higher scale of pay in terms of the order dated 21.9.1993 which had granted such benefit to the Surveyors of the Department. As the LPAs filed by the State i.e. LPA Nos. 1393 and 1394 of 2000 would be virtually determinative of the question arising in all the appeals, we have thought it proper to hear the State counsel in support of the arguments made in the aforesaid two LPAs filed by the State. We have reserved consideration of the LPAs filed by the writ petitioners on the limited question noticed above for being taken up, only, if so required. Sh.Jain, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab who has argued the case for the appellants in LPA Nos. 1393 and 1394 of 2000 has drawn the attention of the Court to the written statement filed in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge to point out that the educational qualifications, source and manner of recruitment and the cadres of Surveyors and Agricultural Sub Inspectors are distinct and different. Sh.Jain has however conceded that it has been admitted in the written statement filed on behalf of the State that the two posts carry the same duties and responsibilities; the promotional avenue for incumbents in both the posts is the same i.e. to the next LPA No. 862 of 2000 and connected cases 4 higher post of Section Officer and above all, the two posts are interchangeable. Sh.Jain, therefore, has submitted that though there are certain similarities but in view of the dis-similarities which also exist and which are patent, the Court should not embark upon an exercise to determine whether the two posts can be treated to be equal for grant of the same benefit in terms of senior scale of pay. Sh.Jain has relied on three judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i)Steel Authority of India Limited and others Vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122 (Paragraph 22 and 31) (ii)Chhattisgarh Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association Vs. State of M.P and others (2004) 4 SCC 646 (Paragraph 20) (iii)State of T.N and another Vs. M.R.Alagappan and others (1997) 4 SCC 401 (Paragraph 11) Sh.Jain has also referred to recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of Indiav Vs. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh and another reported in (2012) 2 SCC 307. Arguing on the basis of the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, Sh.Jain has submitted that equation of posts for the purpose of grant of equal pay is basically the job of the experts and it has been consistently held by the Apex Court that the Courts should be slow in entering into the said domain which is primarily the prerogative of the Executive arm of the Government. Sh.Jain has submitted that the crucial test in this regard is whether “there is complete and wholesome, wholesale identity between the two posts” and only in such an event the posts should be treated as equivalent; otherwise the Court should avoid applying the principle of equal pay for equal work. Sh.Jain has submitted that what weightage should be given to the similarities and dis- LPA No. 862 of 2000 and connected cases 5 similarities between the two posts to determine whether the posts should be equated is an exercise that would be inappropriate for the Court to perform. It is submitted that the very existence of dis-similarities leads to a situation where the two posts cannot be said to have complete and wholesome commonality or identity. Therefore, according to Sh.Jain, this Court should not proceed to equate the two posts and grant the relief sought for by the writ petitioners. Opposing the arguments advanced by Sh.Jain, Sh.Malik, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents – writ petitioners has vehemently contended that the present is not a case of application of the principle of equal pay for equal work inasmuch as, admittedly, the pay scale of the two posts has been the same all along, except that the senior scale of pay introduced by notification/circular dated 21.9.1993 has not been made available to the Surveyors. The deprivation of the Surveyors from the said senior scale of pay, therefore, according to learned counsel is an arbitrary act which offends Article 14 and needs to be interfered with by this Court. Sh.Malik has submitted that for all practical purposes the State by granting same scale of pay to the Agricultural Sub Inspectors and Surveyors has admitted that the two posts are equal. If that be so, there can be no sound basis for denying the senior scale of pay to the Agricultural Sub Inspectors upon completion of 12 years of service as in the case of Surveyors of the same Department. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties. We have also read the judgments of the Apex Court that have been laid before us and have also perused the circular dated 21.9.1993 in terms of which the rights of the Agricultural Sub Inspectors are required to be determined. We have already held that the pay scale of the two posts at all relevant points of time had been the same and with effect from 1.1.1986 the said LPA No. 862 of 2000 and connected cases 6 scale was Rs.1200 – 2100. The grant of identical pay scale to two different posts which carry certain similarities as well as dis-similarities, details of which have been noticed above, is virtually an implied acceptance on the part of the State that the two posts are equal. As the pay scale of the two posts are identical carrying the implication noted above, we do not think that any discussion on the elaborate case laws cited before us on the principle of equal pay for equal work would be required. The senior scale of pay was introduced by notification/circular dated 21.9.1993 and made applicable for Surveyors. If State had acknowledged Agricultural Sub Inspectors to be equivalent to Surveyors and the former enjoyed the same pay scale as that of Surveyors, we fail to see any reason why senior scale of pay could have been denied to the Agricultural Sub Inspectors on completion of the same years of service. Even if it is assumed that the classification between the two sets of employees who are equal for the first 12 years of service can be made at the end of 12th year for the purpose of grant of senior scale, we fail to see what could be the legitimate object of such a classification to sustain a reasonable connection between the classification made and the object sought to be achieved. In the absence of any of the above circumstances, the decision not to make notification/circular dated

21.9.1993 applicable to Agricultural Sub Inspectors becomes an arbitrary decision unsupported by any reasons. The only reason cited by the State is the difference perceived by it between the two posts. Such perception will have to be foreclosed in view of the actions taken by the State in granting the same scale of pay to both sets of incumbents all along. The result of the above analysis would give rise to a conclusion that the refusal of the State to pay the senior scale of pay to Agricultural Sub Inspectors is an arbitrary decision which cannot withstand our scrutiny. We, LPA No. 862 of 2000 and connected cases 7 therefore, dismiss the appeals filed by the State i.e LPA nos. 1393 and 1394 of 2000 and affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge which was assailed in the said appeals. In so far as LPA Nos. 862 and 1467 of 2000 filed by the writ petitioners are concerned, it will suffice to say that the proceedings in LPA no. 162 of 1999 have no reasonable connection with the present claim of the writ petitioners inasmuch as in the said proceedings i.e LPA no.162 of 1999 the Court was required to consider the claim of the Agricultural Sub Inspectors of the Soil Conservation Department to the scale of pay of the Surveyors in the Industries Department. The order of the learned Single Judge making the decision rendered by him subject to the decision of LPA No.162 of 1999, which is the subject matter of challenge in LPA Nos. 862 and 1467 of 2000, is therefore not tenable. We, accordingly, allow the aforesaid two appeals filed by the writ petitioners by interfering with that part of the order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, and in view of the foregoing discussions, the appeals filed by the State i.e (LPA Nos. 1393 and 1394 of 2000) are dismissed whereas the appeals filed by the writ petitioners i.e. LPA Nos. 862 and 1467 of 2000 are allowed. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE March 20, 2012 NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____