Sandeep Kumar Vs Hp State Pollution Control Board

“i) “To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to grant pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 6600/- by modifying the office order dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure P- 2) in the interest of law and justice.

¶18

ii) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to place the petitioner in the level 21 of the recently revised pay scales instead of level 16 with further direction to the

¶19

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶20

-2-

¶21

respondent to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner including arrears alongwith interest @9% per annum till the realization of the same.”

¶22

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Law Officer by the respondent-Board on contract basis on fixed emoluments of Rs. 9600/- per month w.e.f. 21.8.2018. The services of the petitioner as Assistant Law Officer were regularized w.e.f. 12.5.2015 in the pay scale of Rs. 1030034800+ GP Rs. 4200/-. Petitioner has now been promoted as Law Officer w.e.f. 1.9.2021 in the pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+GP Rs. 5000/-.

¶23

The petitioner is claiming the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 6600/- from the date of his promotion as Law Officer on the ground that the pay scale of Law Officer in the respondent-Board stands upgraded to Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 6600/- after approval accorded by the Sub Committee of Service Matters vide its 13^th Meeting held on 2.4.2010 and subsequently approved by the Council of Ministers.

¶24

Petitioner has alleged discrimination vis-à-vis another Law Officer in the respondent Board, who was

¶25

-3-

¶26

allowed the pay scale of 15600-39100+GP Rs. 6600/- w.e.f. 7.6.2010 in pursuance to the aforesaid decision of the Service Sub Committee and approval of Council of Ministers.

¶27

Respondent has contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been promoted as Law Officer against the post created in the year 2018 vide 25^th Service Committee meeting in the Pay Band of Rs. 10300-34800+GP Rs. 5000/-. It is sought to be explained that the upgradation of pay scale of Law Officer to Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 6600/- vide 13^th Service Committee meeting in the year 2010 was only personal to the then incumbent. It is also submitted that such a decision was taken keeping in view the increased work load of the then Law Officer.

¶28

It is further the case of the respondent that the post of Law Officer held by the earlier incumbent has been re-designated as Senior Law Officer w.e.f. 10.1.2017, which is a measure personal to said incumbent. As per respondent, after re-designation of the post held by the earlier Law Officer, no promotional avenues were left for

¶29

-4-

¶30

Assistant Law Officers, necessitating the creation of another post of Law Officer in the year 2018. 7. Respondent has further averred that the petitioner was granted one time relaxation, as he fell short by nine months in completing the requisite feeder service as Assistant Law Officer for seven years.

¶31

Rejoinder and sur-rejoinder have also been filed, reiterating the respective stand of the parties. 9. This Court vide order dated 11.1.2024 observed that it was not clear from the pleadings as to how and why the pay was reduced once after due deliberation made on 2.4.2010, the Service Committee had granted pre-revised scale of Rs. 10025-15100 to the Law Officer, which was revised to Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 6600/- vide office order dated 22.5.2010. In response thereto, the respondent-Board filed fresh instructions dated 19.2.2024, reiterating its stand taken in the reply and sur-rejoinder.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

¶33

A copy of agenda Item No.-9 before 13^th Service Sub Committee has been placed on record. From the

¶34

-5-

¶35

perusal of contents of Agenda Item No.9 (Annexure P-5), it is not borne that the proposal was to upgrade the pay scale of the post of Law Officer for the then incumbent only. Rather, the pay scale was sought to be upgraded after taking into consideration comparative pay scales of legal cadres in the State Government and other Boards and Organizations. The proposal was forwarded in following terms:-

¶36

“ From the above comparison it is evident that even junior posts in legal cadre of other organizations carries much higher pay-scale than that of Law Officer in the Board. The education qualification and experience required for Law Officers in other organization is same as required for Board’s Law Officer, but pay scale is lower in this Board. The work involved is up to Hon’ble Supreme Court level.

¶37

Keeping in view the nature of responsibility of the work involved it is proposed to upgrade the pay scale of the Law Officer to that of Rs. 10025-15100/-. Presently, he is already drawing basic pay of Rs. 10300/- PM, and there would be hardly any significant in case the pay scale is upgraded to Rs. 10025-15100/-.

¶38

The State Board has sufficient funds and can meet this expenditure out of its own resources.

¶39

Hence, the proposal is placed before the Committee for consideration and approval please”.

¶40

-6-

¶41

The proceedings of 13^th Service Sub Committee against Item No.9 reads as under:-

¶42

“ ITEM No.9: PROPOSAL FOR THE RECTIFICATION /UPGRADATIO OF PAY SCALE OF THE POST OF LAW OFFICER FROM THE PRESENT SCALE OF RS. 720011600/- TO RS. 10025-15100/-

¶43

The Committee approved the up gradation of the pay scale of the post of Law Officer in the Board from the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 7220-11600 to Rs. 10025-15100 (revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to Rs. 1560039100 + Grade Pay Rs. 6600/-).

¶44

In the above backdrop, the contention of the respondent Board that the upgradation of pay scale of the post of Law Officer in 2010 was a measure personal to the then incumbent is not substantiated. Once that being so, the respondent Board ought to come out with valid reason to create a class within the class. To say only that the responsibility of the then Law Officer had increased without revealing objective parameters cannot be sufficiently used by the respondent Board to justify its action.

¶45

There is nothing on record that the decision of 13^th Service Sub Committee of Agenda Item No.9 has ever

¶46

-7-

¶47

been revoked or reviewed. In absence thereof, it is not understandable as to how and why the petitioner has been afforded lesser pay scale as Law Officer.

¶48

As regards the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has been promoted as Law Officer after granting him one time relaxation again cannot justify the action of the respondent for the reason that the respondent has clearly admitted in para-5 of its reply that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Law Officer on contract basis on 21.8.2008 as per the prevalent R&P Rules. Thus, the contract service rendered by the petitioner for period seven years, as Assistant Law Officer after having been appointed in accordance with the R&P Rules could not be ignored towards counting his experience.

¶49

In view of above discussion, there is no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has been clearly discriminated by not paying him the same pay scale as had been paid to similar situated persons since 2010. Merely, because the post of earlier appointed Law Officer has now been re-designated to Senior Law Officer in the same pay

¶50

-8-

¶51

scale can also not be used adverse to the interest of the petitioner to deny him the right in accordance with law. 17. In result, the petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to allow the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 6600/- to the petitioner from the date he was promoted as Law Officer and to place him at appropriate level of recently revised pay scales. The consequential arrears be paid to the petitioner within six months either in lumpsump or by way of installments, failing which, the respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% on unpaid arrears till its realization.

¶52

The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶53

(Satyen Vaidya) 3^rd March, 2025. Judge (kck)

Sandeep Kumar v. Hp State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. Hp State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mast Ram Vs State of Hp

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Vineet Kumar Vs State of Hp

Sheela Devi Vs State of Hp

Om Parkash Verma Vs State of Hp

Suresh Chand Jaswal Vs Sanjana Verma