Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.
Haryana Federation of Engineers – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.17248 of 2012
Decided On : 18-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hierarchy of pay scales for engineers (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contrasting arguments on pay scales (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on pay discrepancies (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal standards for promotional pay scales (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final ruling on pay scale assignments (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.2.2013, Annexure P-7; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix pay scale of Executive Engineer one step higher as compared to that of the Assistant Engineer, and pay scale of Superintending Engineer one step higher as compared to that of the Executive Engineer w.e.f. 1.5.1989.
2. The petitioner is a registered Association of Engineers working with the respondent Department. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, they are aggrieved against pay scales for the posts of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer granted w.e.f. 1.5.1989 to 31.12.1995 only.
3. Briefly, facts of the case are, the post of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer is the initial post in the Department; it is the feeder post for Executive Engineer, and Executive Engineer is the feeder post for Superintending Engineer. Therefore, pay scales of these three posts have always been hierarchically different; Assistant Engineers in the lowest scale, Executive Engineers in the next higher scale and Superintending Engineers in the scale one step higher than that of the Executive Engineers. It was only during the period 1.5.1989 to 31.12.1995 that Assistant Engineers were getting higher pay scale than that of Executive Engineers and equivalent to that of Superintending Engineers, despite the latter two being promotional posts. These pay scales were given vide notification dated 2.6.1989 w.e.f. 1.5.1989.
3.1 This is illustrated by the following table giving scales of pay for these three posts w.e.f. 1.2.1969 to 1.1.1996:
| Date w.e.f. | Assistant Engineer/SDE (Pay Scales) | Executive Engineer | Superintending Engineer |
| 1.2.1969 | Rs.400-1100 | Rs.750-1300 (TS) Rs.1300-1600 (Selection Grade for 10% posts in the cadre) | Rs.1600-1800 |
| 1.4.1979 | Rs.900-1700 | Rs.1200-1860 (TS) Rs.1700-2150 (Selection Grade for 20% posts in the cadre) | Rs.2000-2400 |
| 1.2.1981 | Rs.940-2000 | Rs.1400-2100 (TS) Rs.2000-2300 (Selection Grade for 20% posts in the cadre) | Rs.2100-2500 |
| 1.1.1986 | Rs.2000-3500 | Rs.3000-4500 Rs.3000-5000 (for those Executive Engineers, who were in Selection Grade prior to 1.1.1986 | Rs.3700-5000 |
| 1.5.1989 | Rs.2200-4000 (TS) | Rs.3000-4500 (those Executive Engineers, who were in the Selection Grade prior to 1.1.1986, were granted pay scale of Rs.3000-5000). | Rs.4100-5300 |
| 1.1.1996 | (i) Rs.8000-13500 (functional pay scale) | (i) Rs.10000-13900 (functional pay scale) | (i) Rs.13500-17250 (functional pay scale) |
3.2 It has also come on record that four standard pay scales of Rs.4500-5700, 5100-5700, 5100-6150 and 5100-6700 were prescribed between the pay scales Rs.4100-5300 of Assistant Engineer and Rs.5900-5700 of Chief Engineer, during the aforesaid period.
3.3 Some Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers serving in the Department earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.14933 of 1994 titled V.N. Grover and others v. State of Haryana and another, raising similar claims as has been raised by the petitioner herein. The petition was allowed vide judgment dated 1.2.2012 (Annexure P-1), holding that
Promotional pay scales must exceed those of feeder posts, and minimal increases do not fulfill legal standards for equity in remuneration.
Members of the Petitioner Association ought to have been treated equally w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that the end of justice would be served if the respondents are di....
The court ruled that delay in seeking pay-scale revision after retirement undermines claims, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appeals.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not entertain appeals seeking to re-open decided matters without pointing out any illegality or infirmity in the previous order....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the judgment in Hans Raj case was not in personam but in rem, and all similarly situated persons were entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.1....
Doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law i.e. equal pay must be for equal work of equal value.
The court held that without specific recommendations for pay scale upgrades from the Vth Pay Commission, the claim for enhanced pay scales by the applicants is unjustified.
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
