Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 1125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Dharam Chand Chaudhary, JJ.
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board - Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Upadhaya & others – Respondents
LPA No. 51 of 2009
Decided on: 11.09.2014
For the appellant:Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate.
The complexity of determining parity in pay scales and the need for expert evaluation of job equivalence.
Headnote:
HPSEB - Employment Dispute - Office Order No. 18 HPSEB (SECTT.)/91 - The court directed HPSEB to grant revised pay scale to the petitioners w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment as per office order No. 18 HPSEB (SECTT.)/91 dated 5.3.1991 along with the Special pay of Rs. 200/- per month.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, appointed as Law Officers Grade-II, sought revised pay scale and Special Pay equivalent to Law Officers Grade-I, claiming similarity in duties and responsibilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioners entitled to the revised pay scale and Special Pay, but denied other reliefs. The court held that the petitioners were estopped from claiming Special Pay due to their acceptance of appointment orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to Special Pay equivalent to Law Officers Grade-I, and if their duties were similar to those of Circle Scale Superintendent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were estopped from claiming Special Pay due to their acceptance of appointment orders. The court also emphasized the need for expert evaluation of job equivalence and the complexity of determining parity in pay scales.
Final Decision: The court directed HPSEB to grant revised pay scale to the petitioners w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment as per office order No. 18 HPSEB (SECTT.)/91 dated 5.3.1991 along with the Special pay of Rs. 200/- per month.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment and order, dated 7th April, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 1985 of 2008 (OA No. 890 of 1991), titled as Rajinder Upadhaya and others versus H.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
2. The writ petitioners-respondents herein invoked the jurisdiction of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in the year 1991 by the medium of Original Application No. 890 of 1991 for grant of reliefs mentioned in the relief clause of the said Original Application on the grounds taken in the said petition. After abolition of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, was transferred to this Court, came to be diarized as CWP (T) No. 1985 of 2008. It is apt to reproduce the following reliefs amongst the others herein:
“(i) To grant the initial revised pay scale of Rs. 800- 1400/- to the petitioners with effect from joining of their duties in the respondent HPSEB.
(ii) To grant corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 2100-3700 to the petitioners from 1.1.1986 onwards.
(iii) To grant Special Pay of Rs. 200/- per month to the petitioners, since the time of their joining duties in the respondent department.
(iv) To direct the respondent to modify the Annexure P-6 to the above said extent in respect of Law Officers (Petitioners).”
3. The writ petitioners have laid foundation for grant of the said reliefs on the ground that they came to be appointed as Law Officers in the H.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the HPSEB”) in the year 1989 on different dates, were working, at the time of filing of the Original Application, as Law Officers Grade-II. It is averred that the post of Law Officer Grade-II was equivalent to Circle Scale Superintendent (Non-Gazetted) for the Legal Unit of the HPSEB. In terms of Office Order No. 107/HPSEB(SECTT)/85, dated 3rd September, 1985 (Annexure P-1), the post of Law Officer Grade-II was the feeding cadre to the post of Law Officer Grade-I.
4. The writ petitioners came to be appointed as Law Officers Grade-II and vide Notification No. 95/HPSEB(SECTT.)/89, dated 26th August, 1989, revised the pay scale of Law Officers Grade-II from Rs. 700-1200 to Rs. 800-1400, but were deprived of the said benefit of the pay scale revision. It is further contended that the revision of pay scale was made by the HPSEB from time to time in deviation to Punjab State Electricity Board's (hereinafter referred to as “the PSEB”) pay scale pattern, the post of Circle Scale Superintendent is equivalent to the post of Law Officer, is in the pay scale of Rs. 2100- 3700 as per the revised pay scale, but the writ petitioners have been denied the said pay scale without any reason and the writ petitioners are also entitled to the same. Further, that the HPSEB has also granted Special pay to the category of Law Officers to the tune of Rs. 100/- per month in terms of Office Order No. 56-HPSEB(SECTT)/88, dated 8th July, 1988 (Annexure P-4), the writ petitioners were also entitled to the said benefit, but the same has not been granted to them.
5. It is also averred that the duties and responsibilities of the writ petitioners are almost similar to that of Law Officers Grade-I, the Law Officers Grade-I are enjoying the benefit of Special Pay denied to the writ petitioners without any reason. The writ petitioners have made representations, which were denied.
6. Precisely, the case of the writ petitioners is that the posts of Circle Scale Superintendent and Law Officer Grade-II are equivalent and the duties and responsibilities are same, but despite all that, they have been denied the pay scale in the grade of Rs. 2100-3700 and further, they are also entitled to Special Pay, as granted to the Law Officers Grade-I, because Law Officers Grade-I and Law Officers Grade-II are performing the same duties and responsibilities.
7. The writ respondent
