IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
CT Vikash Jamwal, CT No. 675, S/o Sh. Makal Kumar - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh, Thouugh Principal Secretary (Home) To The Government Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002, (H.P.) Road Transport - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No.102 of 2019
Decided On : 26-10-2021
Equal Pay for Equal Work - Recruitment of Constables - Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post wise Revised pay) Rules, 2012 - Rule 9, Rule 3 - Notification dated 14.01.2015, Notification dated 17.06.2016
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were appointed as Police Constables, challenged the notification dated 14.01.2015 and subsequent modifications, seeking revised pay structure after completion of two years of regular service instead of eight years. The petitioners argued that they were being treated unequally and discriminated against by the respondent-State, contrary to the principles of equal pay for equal work.
Finding of the Court:
The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process knowing the conditions of service, including the pay scale, and thus cannot now challenge it. The Court held that the conditions were expressly mentioned in the advertisement and the petitioners impliedly consented to them by participating without objection. The Court also found the subsequent modifications to be based on intelligible differentia and not arbitrary.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' challenge to the notification and subsequent modifications, claiming unequal treatment and discrimination in pay structure.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners, by participating in the recruitment process without objection, impliedly consented to the conditions of service, including the pay scale. The subsequent modifications were found to be based on intelligible differentia and not arbitrary.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Court clarified that its decision should not hinder the State Government from revisiting the number of years of regular service required for the grant of revised pay scale and grade pay to Constables.
ORDER :
1. This petition was initially filed as an original application before erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and after the abolition of the learned Tribunal, the same has been transferred to this Court.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are as under:-
The case of the petitioners is that respondent-State vide recruitment notice dated 22.06.2012, invited applications from eligible desirous candidates for recruitment against the posts of constables (800 males) in the Himachal Pradesh Police Department in the pay scales of Rs. 5910-20200+Grade Pay Rs. 1900. A copy of the recruitment notice is appended with the petition as Annexure A-1. The pay structure of the constables sought to be so appointed was to be governed by Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (category/Post wise Revised pay) Rules, 2012 ( hereinafter to be referred as the ‘2012 Rules’ for short), copy of which is appended with the petition as Annexure A-2. Finance Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 28.09.2012 added certain provisions in the Schedule governing the pay structure of the employees of the Home Department in terms of Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules. The addition in the Schedule made with respect to the Constables in the Police Department was that revised pay structure of Rs.10300-34800+Rs.3200 Grade Pay was introduced post completion of two years of regular service w.e.f. 01.10.2012. A copy of said notification is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3.
3. It is further the case of the petitioners that in the year 2014, the Finance (Pay Revision) Department submitted a draft Cabinet Memorandum for approval before the Council of Ministers regarding grant of revised pay structure on completion of eight years to the new 800 constables, which were yet to be advertised. This was sought to be done by amending the 2012 Rules. The intent behind the said proposal was to prospectively lessen the so called recurring financial burden upon the State Government.
4. In the year 2015, the Finance (Pay Revision) Department issued impugned notification dated 14.01.2015, vide which, 2012 Rules were amended contrary to the opinion of the Home Department and the revised pay structure of Rs.10300- 34800+Rs.3200 Grade Pay was now made available to Constables after completion of eight years of regular service. The amendment was made applicable w.e.f. 01.10.2013.
5. Thereafter, a fresh recruitment notice dated 15.03.2015 was issued for recruitment of 776 posts of Constables in the police department in the pay scale of Rs. 5910-20200+Rs.1900 (Grade Pay). It was mentioned in this recruitment notice (Annexure P-7) that said pay scales would be drawn by the future recruits after completion of eight years regular service from the date of initial appointment in terms of notification dated 14.01.2015.
6. The petitioners being eligible participated in the selection process so undertaken by the Department pursuant to notice dated 15.03.2015 and they were offered appointment to the said post in the month of September, 2015 as such. The petitioners were offered the job on an initial pay scale of Rs.7810, which was to be revised to Rs.10300-34800+3200 (Grade Pay) after completion of long span of eight years as Constables.
7. According to the petitioners, they had no alternative but to accept such offer from the department. They joined as such under the 2nd India Reserve Battalion, Sakoh, District Kangra, H.P. and 3rd India Reserve Battalion Pandoh, District Mandi, H.P.
8. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Constables, who were appointed before 01.01.2015 in terms of earlier advertisement, filed an Original Application No. 2076 of 2016, titled as Ct. Prashant Kumar and Others vs. State of H.P. in May, 2016, assailing the date of applicability of impugned notification dated 14.01.2015. Certain departmental correspondence was also assailed before the Tribunal and prayer was made for grant of revi
Randhir Singh Versus Union of India and Others (1982) 1 SCC 618;
Mewa Ram Kanojia Versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others (1989) 2 SCC 235;
State Bank of India and Another Versus M.R. Ganesh Babu and Others (2002) 4 SCC 556;
Union of India and Another Versus International Trading Co. and Another (2003) 5 SCC 437;
Chairman and MD, NTPC LTD. Versus Reshmi Constructions
Union of India and Others Versus Atul Shukla and Others (2014) 10 SCC 432
Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Surender Singh and Others
Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Through Legal Representatives) vs. Purushottam and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.