The State cannot arbitrarily fix different dates for revision of scales of employees who are similarly situated. Unless good reasons are shown for a differential treatment, all employees who are similarly placed, shall normally be entitled to a parity of treatment.

J.L.Gupta, J.

1. Is the action of the respondents in granting the revised scales of pay to the Junior Engineers of the Corporation with effect from January 1,1993 while other Junior Engineers working in various Departments of the State Government have been granted the same scales of pay with effect from January 1, 1992 violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case.

2. The petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The Haryana Government had revised the pay scales of Junior Engineers in all Government departments of Haryana w.e.f. 1.1.1992 as under :-

Existing pay scale Revised pay scale

i) Rs. 1400-2300 i) 1640-2900

ii) Rs. 1640-2900 ii) 2000-3200

(available to 50% of the cadre as promotional Grade) (for those J. Es who complete fifteen years regular and satisfactory service and have not been promoted to the next higherpost).

It has been decided to grant two advance increments to a J.E who acquires AMIE or an equivalent degree subject to the condition that he has completed a minimum of 5 years regular and satisfactory service.

3. The petitioner claims that on May 4,1971, the Corporation had decided that the "scales of pay as revised by the Government of Haryana from time to time will be applicable to the employees of the Corporation directly recruited by it." The grievance is that in spite of this decision, the Junior Engineers working with the respondent-corporation have been granted the benefit of the revised scales of pay only with effect from January, 1, 1993 while others who were similarly situated, have been given this benefit with effect from January 1, 1992. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution.

4. On behalf of the respondents, a written statement has been filed by Mr. B.D. Kalra, Personnel Advisor to the Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises. According to the respondents, it is "the inherent administrative power of the Government to prescribe and grant scales of pay to any class or category of employees of Public Undertakings borne on different and distinct cadre and governed by separate set. of statutory rules from any date. It was after "a careful examination of the proposal by the Standing Committee (Constituted by the Finance Department for creation and upgradation of posts, their pay scales, mode of recruitment, terms and conditions of service) in its meeting held on 30.12.1992, it was decided to grant to Junior Engineers higher pay scales w.e.f 1.1.993..." It has been further stated that the council of Ministers had already decided in its meeting held on 14.5.1990 to give effect to the revised pay scales with effect from the 1st day of the month in which the proposal was approved. Even if the Government had not revised the pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1993, "the petitioner had no legal right to claim the revision." It has also been pointed out that Civil Writ Petition No. 12483 of 1990 has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22.2.1993.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The two questions that arise for consideration are :-

i) Is it the inherent power of the Government to grant the revised scales of pay to different categories of employees from different dates ?

ii) Is the action of the respondents in granting revised scales of pay to the Junior Engineers working in the respondent-corporation with effect from 1.1.1993 while other Junior Engineers have been granted this benefit with effect from 1.1.1992, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

Reg: Q. No. (i) : Article 16 like Article 14 permits classification. However, according to the traditional view, the classification should be based on an intelligible, differentia which must have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to