IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.03.2025 DR. DINESH GULIA AND OTHERS ......Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Santokhwinder S. Grewal, Addl. Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent-Union of India.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The petitioner claims pay-parity as Veterinary Surgeon with the Medical Officers, since as per the earlier Pay Commissions, the pay of Veterinary Surgeons as well as Medical Officers were at par. It is further noticed by this Court that revision of pay scales of the ‘Medical Officers’ was undertaken pursuant to the statutory rules notified by the Government under Article 309 on 18.07.2014 whereby their Pay Scales had been revised. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has been posed with the following questions:-

i) As to under what circumstances, the recommendations of the Pay Commission can have an overriding effect over the specific statutory rules notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India? ;

ii) As to whether the petitioner can claim pay parity notwithstanding absence of any statutory rules placing Veterinary Surgeons at par with the Medical Officers who are now governed by the Haryana Civil Medical (Group-A) Service Rules, 2014? ;

iii) He has also been put the question as to the competence of the High Court to issue directions to the legislature to frame similar rules for the posts of Veterinary Surgeons as well ?.

3. He is not in a position to respond to the aforesaid queries .

4. To the contrary, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents refers to the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-20860-2012 titled “Jagdish Chander and others versus State of Haryana and another” decided on 29.03.2017 wherein this Court specifically held that it is within the competence of the Government to change the pay structure of different class of employees and that the act of the Government in providing a preferential pay structure to the HCMS Doctors as against the Veterinary Surgeons cannot be said to be arbitrary. The operative part of the said judgment dated 29.03.2017 is extracted hereinafter below:-

“I am of the considered view that if the Government has maintained pay parity on two occasions by accepting the recommendations of Central Pay Commission, it would not mean that for all the times to come, the same pay parity has to be maintained between the Veterinary Surgeons and the HCMS Doctors.

For the purpose of fixation of pay, the Government has to take into consideration the various factors including the educational qualification, the rigorousness of the course and other factors as enumerated in the written statement.

Admittedly, in the present case, same pay scales have been given to the petitioners after they raised a demand. However, the pay scales were granted to HCMS Doctors w.e.f. 20.02.2009. The only difference is the date of implementation of pay scale. The further difference is regarding the higher pay scales, which is granted after rendering 11 and 17 years of regular satisfactory service, whereas in case of HCMS Doctors, these were granted after rendering 10 and 15 years of regular satisfactory service. The previous cap limiting it to the certain percentage of the cadre strength of the post has been removed, in case of HCMS Doctors, but the same has been retained with some modification in case of Veterinary Surgeons. Keeping in view the nature of their qualification, nature of duties and considering the other factors, it cannot be said that the Government had agreed to maintain pay parity between the Veterinary Surgeons working in the Animal Husbandry and HCMS Doctors for all the times to come. It is always prerogative of the Government to make changes in the pay structure. It is also not an anomaly. It is conscious decision of the Gov