Allowed

Ramesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Sept 2024CWPOA/3722/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the State Government's refusal to revise pay scales for Panchayat Sub Inspectors and Inspectors effective October 1, 2012. The court held that equating promotional posts with feeder posts at the same pay scale creates an anomaly and struck down the rejection as arbitrary due to lack of reasoned explanation.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; respondents directed to revise pay scales for Sub Inspectors (Rs. 4200 GP) and Inspectors (Rs. 4400 GP) w.e.f. 01.10.2012 and pay arrears with interest within three months.

Ramesh Dutt Sharma Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWPOA No. 3722 of 2019.

¶4

Reserved on : 28th August, 2024.

¶5

Date of Decision : 6 th September, 2024.

¶6

Ramesh Dutt Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ... .Respondents.

¶7

Coram:

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

¶10

For the Petitioners: Mr. Dilip K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shikha Rajta, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. Sidharath Jalta, Deputy Advocate General.

¶12

Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶13

Aggrieved against the refusal by the respondents to revise pay scale of petitioners w.e.f. 01.10.2012, petitioners have filed the instant petition for following substantive reliefs:-

¶14

“(i) The impugned rejection of the claim of the petitioners for revised/higher Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- (for Panchayat Sub Inspectors) and Rs.4400/- (for Panchayat Inspectors) with effect from 1.10.2012, vide N-16 dated 30.1.2014 at

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

…2… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶17

Annexure P-8, may kindly be quashed and set aside;

¶18

ii) That the respondent may be directed to allow to the Sub Inspectors (Panchayat) the revised/higher Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from 01.10.2012 at par with their counter parts i.e. SEBPO with whom they have been enjoying pay parity and share common feeder post, with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and interest at market rate on delayed payments;

¶19

iii) That as a result of admissibility of revised/higher Grade Pay of Rs.4200 to the feeder post of Sub Inspector (Panchayats) with effect from 01.10.2012, the respondents may be directed to allow to the Inspector (Panchayats) the revised/higher Grade Pay of Rs.4400/- w.e.f. 1.10.2012, with all consequential benefits.”

¶20

Petitioners, at the time of filing of petition, were

¶21

posted as Inspectors (Panchayats) and Sub Inspectors (Panchayats) respectively. The grievance as raised by petitioners is that the post of Sub Inspector (Panchayats) is a promotional post from the feeder category of Panchayat Secretary and the next promotional post available to the Sub Inspector (Panchayats) is that of Inspector (Panchayats). It is contended that the categories of Sub Inspectors and Inspectors (Panchayats) were left out from revision of pay w.e.f. 01.10.2012, when the State Government had revised

¶22

…3… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶23

the pay scales of all other categories of its employees. As per the petitioners, not only the above categories were left out from revision of pay, an anomalous situation has been created by bringing the pay scale of feeder and promotion post at par with each other. It is submitted that the feeder post of Panchayat Secretary was placed in the pay scale of 5910-20200 +1900 GP w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The corresponding pay scale of Sub Inspector (Panchayats) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was 10300-34800+3200 G.P. Whereas, the pay scale of Panchayat Secretary was revised w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to the pay scale of 10300-34800 + 3200 G.P., no revision was allowed to Sub Inspectors. In this manner, the pay scales of Panchayat Secretary and Sub Inspector were equated. It has also been pointed out that the posts of Sub Inspectors were created w.e.f. 30.06.1998 in the pay scale of 5000-8100 and at that time pay scale attached to the post of Panchayat Secretary was 3120-5160.

¶24

It is also the case of the petitioners that the post of Inspectors is a promotional post for Sub Inspectors. Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Inspector provides for method of recruitment as 75% by promotion from

¶25

…4… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶26

amongst the Sub Inspectors and 25% by direct recruitment. It is submitted that another post of Social Education and Block Planning Officer (SEBPO), as per its R & P Rules, is a promotional post from feeder post of Panchayat Secretary. As per the method of recruitment, 90% of such posts are to be filled by promotion from amongst Panchayat Secretaries and remaining 10% by direct recruitment. As per the contention of the petitioners, the post of Sub Inspector and SEBPO were in the same pay scale of 5000-8100 w.e.f. 30.06.1998, when newly created post of Sub Inspectors came into being. Both these posts were placed in the pay scale of 10300-34800+3200 G.P. w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The pay scale of SEBPO was revised to 10300-34800 +4200 G.P. w.e.f. 01.10.2012.

¶27

In above backdrop, the petitioners have alleged that anomaly in the pay structures of Sub Inspector and Inspectors has been created, Whereas the category of SEBPO, which was equivalent to Sub Inspectors has been placed in the pay scale of 10300-34800 +4200 G.P. w.e.f. 01.10.2012, the Inspector which is a higher post than the Sub Inspector has been kept in the old pay scale of 10300-34800

¶28

…5… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶29

3600 G.P. as was available for such category w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

¶30

The petitioners have further alleged that they represented to their administrative department for removal of anomaly and to grant them revised pay scales. Though, the administrative department of petitioner twice recommended the case of petitioners for removal of anomaly by revising their pay scales, but both the times the finance department of the State Government rejected the proposal by cryptic orders without any reason.

¶31

The respondents have filed their joint reply. Though, the factual position has not been disputed, however, it has evidently been wrongly stated that the Sub Inspectors were in higher pay band than the Panchayat Secretary after 01.10.2012 revision. Even in their reply respondents have mentioned availability of same pay scale of Rs.1030034800+3200 G.P. w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to both categories. The entire thrust of the respondents has been on the distinctive features attached to the posts of Sub Inspectors and SEBPOs. It is alleged that in view of the distinction and difference in the service profiles of above posts, the equation sought by

¶32

…6… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶33

Sub Inspectors with the pay scale provided to SEBPOs was not legally tenable. It has further been contended that options are available to the Panchayat Secretaries to opt either to be promoted as Sub Inspector or SEBPO and hence the mere fact of post of Panchayat Secretary being feeder category for both the categories cannot be a ground to equate the posts of Sub Inspectors and SEBPOs for the purpose of pay scale.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the entire record.

¶35

The petitioners have placed on record recommendation made by their administrative department to the government for removal of anomalies and grant of revised pay scales to them. In the first instance, the administrative department recommended grant of revised grade pay of Rs.4200/- to Sub Inspectors and Rs.4400/- to the Inspectors as is evident from the office note Annexure P-8. The Finance Department rejected the said proposal by noting as under:-

¶36

“Finance department regrets to concur in the proposal of the A.D.”

¶37

Again the administrative department of the petitioner recommended the Grade Pay of Rs.3600/- to the Sub

¶38

…7… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶39

Inspectors and Rs.4200/- to the Inspectors. The Finance Department again rejected the proposal as under:-

¶40

“Examined. Finance department regrets its inability to concur in the proposal of A.D.”

¶41

It is not in dispute that the post of Sub Inspector is

¶42

a promotion post from the feeder post of Panchayat Secretary. Admittedly, the pay scale to the post of Panchayat Secretary was revised to 10300-34800+3200 G.P. w.e.f. 01.10.2012 from the earlier pay scale of 5910-20200+1900 G.P. as was available to said post w.e.f. 01.01.2006. By such revision, the pay scale of Panchayat Secretary was brought at par with the pay scale available to the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 01.01.2006. No revision of pay was given to the Sub Inspectors. Consequently, the feeder and promotion post came to be bracketed in the same pay scale.

¶43

As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tarsem Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1994)5 SCC 392, promotion is always subject to higher position, grade or honour. The promotion as understood in service law jurisprudence means advancement in rank, grade or both. With these observations, it has been opined that the promotional post cannot carry the same pay scale as that of

¶44

…8… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶45

the feeder post and the promotional post must carry a higher pay scale.

¶46

It will be apt to notice the observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunder Lal Jain vs. State of Punjab, 1994 SCC Online P&H 1188 wherein it was observed that where a lower post is equated in the matter of pay scale with the pay scale available to the promotional post then it is a clear anomaly and being irrational is liable to be removed.

¶47

Thus, it is more than settled that the pay scale of promotional post has to be higher than the feeder post. In the instant case, the fact situation is different and the promotional and feeder posts have been placed in the same pay scale, which being against law cannot be sustained.

¶48

Since, the post of Sub Inspector is a feeder post for the post of Inspector, the same anomalous position remains because the pay scale available to the post of Inspector is 10300-34800+3600 G.P. w.e.f.01.01.2006 and having not been revised, any revision in the pay scale of Sub Inspector will result in the pay anomaly vis-a-vis the post of Sub Inspector and Inspector.

¶49

…9… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶50

The petitioners have sought the revision of pay scale to the post of Sub Inspector in parity with the post of SEBPO. The fact of the matter is that the Sub Inspector and SEBPO were under the same pay scale of 5000-8100 applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996. During the next revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006, both the aforesaid categories were placed in the pay scale of 10300-34800+3200 G.P. Pay scales of SEBPOs were revised to 10300-34800 +4200 G.P. w.e.f. 01.10.2012, whereas the Sub Inspectors remained in the old pay scale of 10300-34800 +3200 G.P. The respondents have sought to justify their action by canvassing the difference in job profiles of both the posts. However, there is no explanation from the respondents that how the difference in job profiles had become material while revising the pay scales w.e.f. 01.10.2012. As noticed above, before 01.10.2012 the same pay scales were provided to both the posts of Sub Inspectors and SEBPOs under the pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It is not the case of respondents that there has been some quantitative and qualitative change in the job profiles of Sub Inspectors and SEBPOs w.e.f. 01.10.2012. If the respective job profiles of Sub Inspectors

¶51

…10… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶52

and SEBPOs were the same during continuance of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006, it is not understandable how such defence can be raised by the respondent without showing any change in job profiles.

¶53

The stand taken by the respondents is also not in conformity with what has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association and others , reported in (2017)9 SCC 379 . In para-27 of the above judgment, it has been observed as under:-

¶54

“27. We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be granted. However, if the basic qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid down, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some good reasons are disclosed. Thus, the decisions relied upon by learned senior

¶55

…11… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶56

counsel are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.”

¶57

It is also equally well settled that the administrative decision more particularly when it deals with substantive rights of citizens need to be expressed with reason. In the instant case, the finance department has rejected the proposal consecutively made by the administrative department without assigning any reason. On this count also the impugned actions of the respondents cannot be sustained.

¶58

In State of Punjab vs. Bandeep Singh & Ors. reported in (2016)1 SCC 724 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

¶59

“4. There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any Authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi [1978] 2 SCR 272 , of which the following paragraph deserves extraction:

¶60

…12… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶61

“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [1952] 1 SCR 135:

¶62

‘9……..public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of Explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.’

¶63

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older”.

¶64

7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511. However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be

¶65

…13… ( 2024:HHC:8009 )

¶66

informed and impregnated with reasons. This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd. (1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517.”

¶67

In light of above discussion, the instant petition is allowed; the respondents are directed to revise the pay scale of Sub Inspector (Panchayats) and Inspector (Panchayats) to Rs.10300-34800+4200 G.P. and Rs.10300-34800+4400 G.P. respectively w.e.f. 01.10.2012 within three months from the date of judgment and also to pay them entire arrears within the aforesaid period along with interest @ 6% per annum, failing which the arrears shall entail interest @ 9% per annum.

¶68

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶69

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶70

6^th September, 2024. (jai)

Ramesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faijan Vs State of Hp

M/S Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Leond Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd.

Vijender Singh Vs State of Hp

The Chief Engineer National Highway and Others Vs M/S Om Prakash Sharma and Sons

Rameshwar Lal Vs the Accountant General and Others

Ghanshyam Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Others