Dismissed

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2011CWP/19127/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three writ petitions wherein employees of the Punjab State University Text-Book Board claimed equal pay scales with College Librarians and Lecturers. The Court held that it is the department's responsibility to equate posts and that the Court cannot interfere merely on the basis of claims for equal pay without proving identical duties.

What did the court decide?

Rejected claims for equal pay scales of College Librarians and Lecturers as petitioners failed to prove identical duties.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991 Date of decision: 23.09.2011

Sukhdev Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG Punjab for the State.

¶13

Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶14

RANJIT SINGH J.

¶15

This order shall dispose of three Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18781 & 19127 of 1991 and 1330 of 2003.

¶16

For the ease of discussion, the facts are noticed from Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991. The pleadings in this case are complete.

¶17

The petitioner is employee of Punjab State University Text-Book Board and has approached this Court for grant of pay scale of 700-1600 and the revised pay scale of 2200-4000 on the ground that he is performing similar/identical duties of Librarian working in the colleges and this scale having been allowed to the said Librarians by State of Punjab, be allowed to him as well.

¶18

The petitioner is working with the respondent-Board since 20.06.1972. The petitioner is having qualification of Graduation and

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991

¶20

¶21

B. Lib. He was granted scale of 250-500 initially, which was later revised to 300-600, as per the instructions contained in letter of Punjab Government dated 03.03.1976. The petitioner has pleaded that this scale of ` 300-600 was granted to all those Librarians, who were appointed subsequent to 01.11.1966 and the revised scale was made applicable to all such Librarians with effect from the date of their appointments. Similar decision was taken to the same effect by governing body of respondent-Board in its meeting held on 09.05.1978. The petitioner claims that he was equated with the College Cadre Librarians for the purpose of pay scale. The petitioner further contends that the decision of the governing body to revise the pay scale of Librarian was without any condition of educational qualifications. The order would also indicate that the petitioner earlier was working as College Librarian and had now been posted in the Board.

¶22

It is disclosed that respondent/State of Punjab has allowed notional pay of ` 700-1200 to the College Cadre Librarian. The petitioner was also granted this scale on 23.07.1987 but w.e.f. 01.04.1980. Thereafter, the agenda item was brought before the Governing Body of the Board on 02.11.1988 and the following decision was taken:

¶23

“The Finance Commission Education stated that the Librarians of the Colleges/Universities of Panjab have not yet been granted the UGC scales by the Panjab Govt. as the concurrence of the Finance Department is awaited. Whenever this scale is given to the Librarians of Colleges/Universities, Sh. Sukhdev Singh would also be

¶24

Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991

¶25

¶26

granted that pay scale.”

¶27

Copy of the proceedings of this decision has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. The members desired that the petitioner be also granted UGC scale especially when the same had been granted to all the academic staff working in the Board. Respondent No. 2 had sent a note to Vice Chairman (Education Secretary Punjab)for implementation of UGC scales of ` 700-1600 to the petitioner. Instead of allowing the scale, the Vice Chairman in turn informed that the entire matter was being probed.

¶28

The scale of College Cadre Librarians was further revised w.e.f. 06.04.1989 and they were given scale of 2200-4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Copy of this decision is also annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7. Instead of granting these scales to the petitioner, he was asked to opt for pay scale of 1640-2925 in August, 1990. The petitioner, accordingly, represented to the Board with the prayer that till the time decision in regard to UGC pay scale is taken, he may be allowed pay at the old pay scale of 700-1200. Ultimately, the Government directed respondent No. 2 to fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of 1640-2925 on 08.03.1991. The order in this regard is annexed as Annexure P-8. The petitioner, accordingly, has impugned this order and has claimed the same scale as has been allowed to College Cadre Librarians.

¶29

CWP No. 18781 of 1991 against the same relief was filed by three petitioners, who were working as Assistant Editors with the respondent-Board. They claim that they be treated at par with scale of Lecturers working in the Punjab University. On this basis, they had

¶30

Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991 4

¶31

made a claim for grant of pay scale of ` 700-1600, which has been allowed to college Lecturers w.e.f. 01.01.1973. It is claimed that all the Lecturers in the Punjab University have been allowed this scale and the governing body of the Board had also probably agreed that the Assistant Editor be granted pay scale granted to the Lecturers by the University Grants Commission. This scale was allowed to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.1978 and they were fixed in the scale vide order dated 26.02.1980. The UGC had made recommendation for further revision of pay scales of the Panjab University and thereafter reference is made to decision dated 18.07.1988 where the governing body took a decision to grant pay scale to the academic staff of respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The petitioners have, accordingly, filed this writ petition to claim pay parity with the Lecturers.

¶32

In Civil Writ Petition No. 1330 of 2003, the claim set up by the petitioner is again on the basis of identical plea as raised in CWP No. 19127 of 1991. The petitioner, in this case, is also working as Librarian and has claimed the scale on similar or identical ground as is noticed in CWP No. 19127 of 1991.

¶33

The respondent-State as well as the Board has filed reply. As per the reply, the petitioner is accused of misrepresenting the facts by misquoting the contents of Agenda Item No. 12 (Annexure P-2). It is stated that the petitioner was granted the pay scale of ` 300-600 w.e.f. 01.05.1978 though he was appointed on 20.06.1972. Otherwise also, the averment made in the writ petition that the petitioner is performing the same or identical functions as performed by the Librarians working in the colleges is denied. It is again stated

¶34

Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991 5

¶35

that Annexure P-2 is not the correct copy of decision. The State in its reply explained in detail and in elaborate manner that the duties and responsibilities performed by the petitioner are not identical. State counsel has invited my attention to the contents of reply where it is stated that Annexure P-3 is not applicable to the present case. It is then pointed out that so far as the decision of the governing body taken in the meeting held on 02.11.1988 is concerned, the Vice Chairman and the Director of the Board was authorised to reconsider the matter from all angles and take necessary action. Pursuant to this decision, the Punjab Government had asked the Board to furnish the following information through its communication dated 12.07.1991:-

¶36

(i)In all how many members of the library of the respondent Board have been issued books from the library during the last 10 years,

¶37

(ii)How many books were catalouged, entered and issued by the petitioner during the last ten years,

¶38

(iii)The total number of books got printed by the Board during the last 10 years and kept in the library as record.

¶39

(iv)How many books have been returned by the members during the last 10 years.

¶40

(v)How many books have been issued to the writers/vetters during the last ten years.

¶41

Respondent No.2/Board in turn had asked the petitioner

¶42

to furnish the requisite information but no response was given to the query as noted above. Thereafter, number of reminders were sent to

¶43

Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991 6

¶44

the petitioner but he did not furnish any information. Accordingly, it is stated that the workload, nature of duties and quality of work of the petitioner cannot be equated to that of the Librarians working in the College. As per the reply, in the absence of such equivalence, the petitioner is not entitled to be placed on higher pay scale of ` 7001600 as claimed by him. Communication in this regard has also been annexed with the reply.

¶45

In addition, the respondents appearing in CWP No. 18781 of 1991 would point out that the petitioners, who were working as Editors cannot make any claim for being equated with the post of Lecturers. Duties and the responsibilities of the posts are entirely different and by no stretch of imagination these posts can be equated.

¶46

No one has appeared for the petitioners in this case. Counsel appearing for the respondents have also placed before me judgments in the cases of Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank versus D.B. Sharma and others AIR 2001 Supreme Court 168, State of West Bengal & Anr. Versus West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association & Ors. JT 2010 (3) SC 148 and S.C. Chandra and Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3021.

¶47

The broad principle laid down in these judgments is that it is not the duty of the Court to equate the posts and that the responsibility has to be left to the department or the expert body. In the case of State of West Bengal (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts

¶48

Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991 7

¶49

were carrying the same scale of pay. It is noticed that one of the functions of the Pay Commission is to identity the post which deserves a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts. Noticing the functions to be performed by the Pay Commission, it is observed that the Commission has two functions; firstly to revise the existing pay scale by recommending revised pay scales, secondly; make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. The Court has gone to the extent of holding that the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It depends upon comparative job, evaluation of various factors. It is observed that the Courts should interfere only if the decision of Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees. As per this decision, burden to prove disparity is on the employees.

¶50

In view of this and the fact that the respondents have denied equivalence, it would not be appropriate for this Court to equate the posts. Even if that was to happen, still the different pay scales could be allowed and the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work', cannot be effected, it being not a fundamental right. The petitioner has not been able to establish that he was performing the same or similar/identical duties. The petitioner is claiming the pay parity only on the basis of posts having been equated. That ground did not find the approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶51

Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991 8

¶52

State of West Bengal (supra). I find no merit in the writ petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. September 23, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Inder Singh Vs Assistant Registrar

Jasbir Singh Vs Punjab Mandi Board & Ors.

Ajay Kumar @ Jeji Vs State of Punjab

Dr. Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Pb. and Others

Kanwar Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Abha Bansal Vs the Karnal Central Coop Bank Ltd. Karnal and Others