High Court
Case Details
Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 2. Admi(cid:8)edly, a(cid:14)er his ini(cid:19)al appointment as Clerk in Punjab State Tubewell Corpora(cid:19)on (re-named as Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corpora(cid:27)on) – respondent No.1, pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner was promoted as Senior Assistant in 1985 and then was promoted as Divisional Accountant in September, 2001 a(cid:14)er passing Departmental Divisional Accountant Examina(cid:19)on. The post of the Senior Assistant is feeder post for being promoted as Superintendent Grade – I as well as Divisional Accountant. 3.1 According to pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner, pursuant to the direc(cid:19)ons issued by the Punjab Government dated 01.10.1984 vide Annexure P-2, parity/near parity in respect of the posts exis(cid:19)ng in respondent No.1 Corpora(cid:19)on was maintained by corresponding post of the Government Department in the ma(cid:8)er of recruitment, service condi(cid:19)ons and pay scales and it was under these circumstances that higher pay scale than that of the Senior Assistants’ pay scale was granted to the Divisional Accountant, it being a promo(cid:19)onal post. 3.2 It is alleged that though during the pay revision of 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996, higher pay scale was granted to the category of Divisional Accountant, but in the revision of 01.01.2006, much lower grade pay was granted to Divisional Accounts Officer than the Superintendent Grade-I, inasmuch as grade pay of ₹3,800/- was granted to the Senior Assistant & grade pay of ₹4,200/- was granted to the Divisional Accountant and grade pay of ₹5,000/- was granted to Superintendent Grade-1. The said difference in the grade pay further escalated w.e.f. 01.12.2011, when feeder cadre of Senior Assistant was granted the higher grade pay of ₹4,400/-, but the grade pay of Divisional Accounts Officer (Divisional Accountant) was not correspondingly enhanced. Grade pay of Superintendent Grade-1 at that (cid:19)me was enhanced from ₹5,000/- to ₹5,400/-. 3.3 On the representa(cid:19)on dated 22.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) made by the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner, a Commi(cid:8)ee of higher officers of the respondent recommended to equate the Divisional Accounts Officer with Superintendent Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 2 of 11 CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 Grade-I, but the said recommenda(cid:19)on was rejected by the Government by way of impugned order dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure P-6). Another representa(cid:19)on dated 27.04.2015 met the same fate vide order dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure P-9). Therea(cid:14)er, pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner made comprehensive representa(cid:19)on (Annexure P-11) and then filed CWP No.7724 of 2016, in which direc(cid:19)on was issued on 27.04.2016 to consider the claim of the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner by passing a speaking order and consequent thereto, the Managing Director of respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner vide impugned order dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure P-13). 3.4 The grievance of the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner is that promo(cid:19)onal post cannot have a pay either lower or equivalent to the pay scale of a feeder cadre post. Though, w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the grade pay of Senior Assistant was ₹3,800/-, that of Divisional Accountant as ₹4,200/- and Superintendent as ₹5,000/-, but w.e.f. 01.12.2011, the grade pay of Senior Assistant was enhanced to ₹4,400/- and that of Superintendent as ₹5,400/-, but as far as Divisional Accountant is concerned, the same was maintained at ₹4,200/-. 4. Conten(cid:19)on of learned Senior counsel for the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner is that pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner is not only en(cid:19)tled for correspondence increase in the grade pay comparing to the grade pay granted to the Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.12.2011, the grade pay to the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner is liable to be granted as equivalent to that of Superintendent Grade – I. 5. In the ini(cid:19)al reply filed by respondent No.1; and the joint reply
Legal Reasoning
Although this fact has been denied by the appellant, we are of the opinion that even if it is correct, that will not be of any help to the respondents. To give an illustra(cid:19)on, if post A and post B have been carrying the same pay scales, merely because the pay scale of post A has been increased that by itself cannot result in increase in the pay scale of post B to the same level. It is en(cid:19)rely on the Government and the authori(cid:19)es to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale of post B should be increased or not. The judiciary must exercise self-restraint and not encroach into the execu(cid:19)ve or legisla(cid:19)ve domain.” 15. Apart from above, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. v. Seema Sharma”, 2022(3) SCT 445 as under: - “23. The fixa(cid:19)on of scales of pay is a ma(cid:8)er of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in excep(cid:19)onal cases where there is discrimina(cid:19)on Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 10 of 11 CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the du(cid:19)es are iden(cid:19)cal in every aspect.” 16. In view of the aforesaid legal posi(cid:19)on, it is held that simply because the post of Superintendent Grade – 1 and that of Divisional Accounts Officer have the same feeder past of Senior Assistant, that cannot be a reason to grant the same pay scale to both of them, as it is en(cid:19)rely for the Government and the Authori(cid:19)es to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale for one post should be equivalent to the other or different. 17. Consequent to above discussion, the present pe(cid:19)(cid:19)on is hereby dismissed. January 20, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 11 of 11
Arguments
filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, it was contended that fixa(cid:19)on of pay scale was purely an execu(cid:19)ve func(cid:19)on, as principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply in the present case. It was further pleaded that though the post of Superintendent Grade – I and that Divisional Accounts Officer emanates from the post of Clerk, which is a feeder cadre, but line and channel of promo(cid:19)on is different, as the work and du(cid:19)es performed are also different. The Divisional Accounts Officer deals with the accounts sec(cid:19)on only, whereas Superintendent works in supervisory capacity in different branches and not restricted to accounts. The respondents, thus, defended Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 3 of 11 CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 the impugned orders in not gran(cid:19)ng the grade pay of Superintendent Grade - I to the post of Divisional Accountant/Divisional Accounts Officer, i.e. the post held by the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the par(cid:19)es and have appraised the record carefully. 7. In the order dated 11.05.2023, this Court observed that the pay scale a(cid:8)ached to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer in comparison to the one a(cid:8)ached to the post of Senior Assistant and that of Superintendent was as under:- Dates Senior Assistant Divisional Accountant Superintendent Prior to 1.1.1986 570-1080 700-1200 620-1200 Gr.-II 01.01.1986 1500-2640 1640-3200 1800-3200 1993 1800-3200 2000-3500 2000-3500 Post of Superintendent Gr.-1 was created in the Corpora(cid:19)on in 1996 01.01.1996 5800-9200 6400-10640 6400-10640 01.01.2006 01.12.2011 10300-34800 + GP 3800 10300-34800 + GP 4200 10300-34800 + GP 5000 10300-34800 + GP 4400 10300-34800 + GP 4200 10300-34800 + GP 5400 It was no(cid:19)ced further in order dated 11.05.2023 that w.e.f. 01.12.2011, the pay of the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner, who was working as Divisional Accounts Officer a(cid:14)er his promo(cid:19)on from the post of Senior Assistant, was reduced at a scale lower even to his feeder cadre of senior assistant, leave aside trea(cid:19)ng him at par with the Superintendent. It was no(cid:19)ced further that recommenda(cid:19)ons of respondent No.1-Corpora(cid:19)on had been annulled by the Government of Punjab (Annexures P-6 and P-9) without any reasoning despite the fact that anomaly viz-a-viz the feeder cadre of Senior Assistant with that of the promo(cid:19)onal cadre of Divisional Accounts Officer was wri(cid:8)en large. Therefore, the Secretary (Finance), Government of Punjab was asked to file his affidavit explaining the reasons behind Annexures P-6 and P-9. Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 4 of 11 CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 8.1 Consequent to the aforesaid order dated 11.05.2023, the Secretary Finance, Department of Finance, Government of Punjab filed his affidavit dated 06.11.2023, as per which the post of Divisional Accountant as held by the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner was re-designated that Divisional Accounts Officer, a Group-B post in the mee(cid:19)ng of Board of Directors of the Corpora(cid:19)on held on 25.04.2005 and that as per terms and condi(cid:19)ons of the change of the designa(cid:19)on of Divisional Accountant to that of Divisional Accounts Officer, an undertaking was to be given by the Divisional Accountants, as per which they will neither claim any financial benefits/revision of pay scale nor any promo(cid:19)on to the post of Assistant Controller (Finance and Accounts) as in the Head Officer of the Corpora(cid:19)on. Such undertaking was also given by the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner, the copy of which is Annexure R-1. 8.2 It was further submi(cid:8)ed that w.e.f. 01.12.2011, pay scale for the post of Superintendent Grade-I in the Department of State of Punjab was revised to ₹15,600-39,100 + ₹5,400 grade pay and therefore, the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner, who was placed in the pay scale of ₹10,300-34,800 + ₹4,200 grade pay could not claim parity with the abovesaid pay scale of Superintendent Grade -1. It was further men(cid:19)oned in the said affidavit that a(cid:14)er implementa(cid:19)on of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission, the pay scales granted in the year 2011 stood ra(cid:19)onalized. 8.3 The affidavit dated 06.11.2023 further men(cid:19)oned as under:- “11. That, now a(cid:14)er implementa(cid:19)on of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission, the pay scales granted in the year 2011 stands ra(cid:19)onalised. The Pay Commission in its report submi(cid:8)ed on 30.04.2021, has clearly held that the anomalous situa(cid:19)on which had arisen because of re-revision and enhancement of salaries ordered in the month of October, November and December, 2011 for numerous categories of Government employees, just a(cid:14)er about two years of implementa(cid:19)on of the recommenda(cid:19)on of 5th Punjab Pay Commission was unprecedented in its scale and (cid:19)ming. Considering the same, the Pay Commission has made a conclusive finding in its report in its Para 5.3, which inter alia reads as here under:- Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 5 of 11 CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 1) ‘..........The revision was discriminatory and lacked transparency. The revision benefi-ed only a select category of employees. The Minutes of the Cabinet Sub-Commi-ee or the Cabinet Memoranda do not contain any criteria for selec(cid:27)ng the categories of employees for re-revision of wages. From the procedure followed, it is not clear if all employees were even given an opportunity through a public no(cid:27)ce or internal Government circular to submit their representa(cid:27)ons to the Cabinet Sub Commi-ee. It is a case where equal opportunity was denied to all employees of the Government. In view of these recommenda(cid:27)ons of 6th Pay Commission, the midterm re-revision of pay scales done into 2011 has been duly looked into. 2) That now a6er implemen(cid:27)ng the recommenda(cid:27)ons of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission by the Government of Punjab, the anomalous situa(cid:27)on which arose in 2011 has been removed.” 9. A(cid:14)er no(cid:19)cing the abovesaid contents of the affidavit dated 06.11.2023 of the Secretary Finance, Department of Finance, Government of Punjab, this Court observed in its order dated 12.02.2024 that though it had been men(cid:19)oned that a(cid:14)er implementa(cid:19)on of the recommenda(cid:19)ons of the 6th Pay Commission by the Government of Punjab, the anomalous situa(cid:19)on which had arisen in 2011 had been removed, but no details have been given as to how the same had been removed viz-a-viz the case of the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner. 10. The State counsel sought (cid:19)me to clarify the above said query of the court and consequent thereto, addi(cid:19)onal affidavit dated 16.09.2024 by the Secretary Finance, Department of Finance, Government of Punjab, was filed, the relevant por(cid:19)on of which reads as under:- “6. That, w.e.f. 01.12.2011, on the recommenda(cid:19)ons of Cabinet Sub Commi(cid:8)ee, the Pay Scales for the post of Senior Assistant and Superintendent Grade-I in the Departments of State of Punjab were revised to 10300-34800 + 4400 Grade Pay and 15600-39100 + 5400 Grade Pay respec(cid:19)vely. It is per(cid:19)nent to men(cid:19)on here that the pay scale of Divisional Accounts Officer was not revised, as there existed no such post in the Departments of Government of Punjab. Furthermore, the pay scales revisions of the year 2011 were limited to only a number of categories of posts in the Departments of Government of Punjab. Due to the above-said Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 6 of 11 CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 revision of scales in the year 2011, the pay scale for the post of Superintendent Grade-1 became equivalent to the pay scale for the post of Assistant Controller (Finance and Accounts) as in the Head office of the Corpora(cid:19)on. However, the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner had already submi(cid:8)ed an undertaking (Annexed as Annexure R-1 with the Affidavit filed on 06.11.2023) in which he had duly accepted terms and condi(cid:19)ons, whereby he will not claim any financial benefits of revision of pay scales and benefits pertaining to the post of Assistant Controller (Finance and Accounts) as in the Head office of the Corpora(cid:19)on. 7. That, it is worthwhile to men(cid:19)on here that the channel of promo(cid:19)on and the cadre of both the posts (i.e. Divisional Accounts Officer and Superintendent Grade-1) are dis(cid:19)nct from each other. Furthermore, the scale of Superintendent Grade-1 had always remained higher than the scale of Divisional Accountant/ Divisional Accounts officer. Comparison of the two posts, within the ambit of previously applicable pay scales is as under:- Name of the post Superintendent Grade-1 Divisional Accountant/Divisional Accounts Officer 1/1/1996 7220-11660 6400-10640 Pay Scales 1/1/2006 10300-34800 + 5000 Grade Pay 10300-34800 + 4200 Grade Pay 1/12/2011 15600-39100 + 5400 Grade Pay No revision Therefore, if the pay scale of Divisional Accounts Officer was equated to pay scale of Superintendent Grade-1, it would lead to the anomalies in other posts. Even the work profile, du(cid:19)es, responsibili(cid:19)es of both the posts are separate and the Divisional Accounts Officer cannot claim parity with the Pay Scale for the post of Superintendent Grade- 1 present in the Departments of State of Punjab. 8. That the instruc(cid:19)ons dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure P-10 as appended with writ pe(cid:19)(cid:19)on) are clear that an anomalous situa(cid:19)on is said to have arisen only in those cases, where on account of implementa(cid:19)on of the recommenda(cid:19)ons of the Cabinet Sub Commi(cid:8)ee, the Pay Scales of the promo(cid:19)onal post have become less as compared to the Pay Scales of the junior post, only such cases were to be considered by the Government. The post of Divisional Accountant/Divisional Accounts Officer is not a Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 7 of 11 CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 promo(cid:19)onal post of Senior Assistant in the Departments of Government of Punjab, and the next promo(cid:19)onal post from Senior Assistant is Superintendent in the Government Departments, carrying the pay scale of 15600-39100 + 5400 w.e.f. 01.12.2011. Therefore, in view of these instruc(cid:19)ons dated 23.05.2012, advices dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure P-6 as appended with writ pe(cid:19)(cid:19)on) and dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure P-9 as appended with writ pe(cid:19)(cid:19)on) were duly issued. The Government had duly examined the said case of pay parity and it was found that if the scale of this one cadre (i.e. Divisional Accounts Officer) serving under the Corpora(cid:19)on is modified, the same would have repercussions on various other numerous categories in various Departments of Government of Punjab. 9. That, now a(cid:14)er implementa(cid:19)on of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission, the pay scales granted in the year 2011 stand ra(cid:19)onalised. The Pay Commission in its report submi(cid:8)ed on 30.04.2021, decided to treat the revision ordered in 2011 on the recommenda(cid:19)ons of the Cabinet Sub Commi(cid:8)ee as non-est for the purpose of determining the wage increase w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The recommenda(cid:19)ons of the new pay structure in 6th Punjab Pay Commission has been based on the scales of pay granted by the 5th Punjab Pay Commission. As per the recommenda(cid:19)ons of 6th Punjab Pay Commission, following matrix levels have been defined for the above-said categories of posts, removing the earlier anomaly of the pay scales therein – Name of the post Pay Scales recommended by 5th Pay Punjab Commission and adopted by State Government vide no(cid:19)fica(cid:19)on dated 27th May 2009. Scale as per recommenda(cid:19)ons of a Cabinet Sub- Commi(cid:8)ee of the year 2011 w.e.f. 01.12.2011 (not dra(cid:14)ed by a Pay Commission) Senior Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer Superintendent Grade – 1 10300-34800 + 3800 Grade Pay 10300-34800 + 4200 Grade Pay 10300-34800 + 5000 Grade Pay 10300-34800 + 4400 Grade Pay No revision (remains same as per 5th PPC) 15600-39100 + 5400 Grade Pay Pay Scales recommended by 6th Pay Punjab Commission a(cid:14)er ra(cid:19)onaliza(cid:19)on and due approval of Cabinet and adopted by State Government vide no(cid:19)fica(cid:19)on dated 5th July 2021. 38500 (Matrix Level 11) 43000/- (Matrix Level 12) 48700/- (Matrix Level 16) Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 8 of 11 CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 Thus, as already men(cid:19)oned above, the enhancement of salaries ordered in the month of October, November and December 2011 was unprecedented in its scale and (cid:19)ming. However, it is worth men(cid:19)oning here that with the implementa(cid:19)on of 6th Punjab Pay Commission, the concept of grade pay has been done away with (as elaborated in the table above). A(cid:14)er the implementa(cid:19)on of 6th Pay Commission and its adop(cid:19)on by the said Corpora(cid:19)on, the pay of pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner has been fixed in a higher matrix from Senior Assistant and below the Superintendent Grade -1 as has been in all earlier Pay Commissions: thereby invalida(cid:19)ng the 211 Cabinet Sub- Commi(cid:8)ee recommenda(cid:19)ons and removal of earlier pay anomaly created thereto.” 11. It is evident from the above-said affidavit dated 16.09.2024 of the Secretary Finance, Department of Finance, Government of Punjab that the 6th pay commission in its report submi(cid:8)ed on 30.4.2021 has decided to treat the revision ordered in 2011 on the recommenda(cid:19)on of Cabinets Sub Commi(cid:8)ee as non-est for the purpose of determining the wages increased w.e.f. 01.01.2016. It is further evident that recommenda(cid:19)ons of the new pay structure in the 6th Punjab Pay Commission is now based on the scale of pay granted by 5th Punjab Pay Commission. 12. The recommenda(cid:19)ons of 6th Punjab Pay Commission would reveal that the pay scale of the Senior Assistant has now been recommended to 38,500/- (Matrix level 11), whereas for Divisional Accounts Officer, i.e. the post held by the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner prior to his re(cid:19)rement, the same is 43,000/- (Matrix level 12), i.e. higher than the pay scale of Senior Assistant. As such, the grievance of the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner to the effect that the grade pay of Senior Assistant, i.e. feeder post was higher than that of promo(cid:19)onal post of Divisional Accountant/ Divisional Accounts Officer w.e.f. 01.12.2011 has been treated as non-est; and thus, the higher pay scale in Matrix level-12 comparing to the post of Senior Assistant in Matrix level-11 has been granted to the Divisional Accounts Officer, as per the recommenda(cid:19)ons of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission and thus, the grievance of the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner regarding Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 9 of 11 CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 the anomalous condi(cid:19)on stands removed. As such, relief sought by the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner in this regard has become infructuous. 13. As far as the claim of the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner for grant of parity in pay scale with Superintendent Grade -1 is concerned, it has not merit. As has been pointed out by the respondents that though the feeder post for both the posts, i.e. Divisional Accounts Officer and the Superintendent Grade – 1 is the same, i.e. Senior Assistant/ clerk, but the channel of the promo(cid:19)on and cadre of both the posts are dis(cid:19)nct from each other. Even their work profile, the du(cid:19)es and responsibili(cid:19)es for the two posts are separate and as such, the Divisional Accounts Officer cannot claim parity with the pay scale of the post of Superintendent Grade – 1, simply because at some point of (cid:19)me, the pay scale of the two posts was same. 14. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon “Union of India and others v. Hiranmoy Sen and others”, (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 630, wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “5. Learned counsel for the respondents submi(cid:8)ed that the auditors and assistants have been historically treated on a par in the ma(cid:8)er of pay scales.