1 Leave granted.
2 Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in C.W.P.No.1862 of
2010 and other judgments by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
Shimla, these appeals have been filed by the State of Himachal
Pradesh. Issues involved in all these appeals are almost same and
therefore, all these appeals have been heard together.
3 By virtue of the impugned judgments, the State of Himachal Pradesh
has been directed to give higher pay scale to the respondents –original
petitioners, who had filed petitions claiming higher pay scale on the
ground that in the case of Madan Gopal v. State of H.P., C.W.P. (T)
No.2346 of 2008, the persons who had been similarly situated, had JUDGMENT
been given higher pay scale.
4 The aforesaid submission was accepted by the High Court and all the
petitions filed by the present respondents had been allowed mainly on
the ground that similarly situated persons, namely Madan Gopal and
others had been given higher pay scale by the High Court.
5 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has submitted
that the impugned judgments are not just and proper for the reason
that the High Court was not properly informed about the facts in the
above mentioned petitions filed before the court and the case of
Madan Gopal, on the basis of which the High Court had allowed all
the petitions.
6 So as to understand the issue involved in these appeals, it is necessary
to know the facts involved in the case of Madan Gopal vs. State of
H.P.
7 Civil Suit No.191 of 1986 had been filed in the court of sub-Judge
First Class, Hoshiarpur by Shri Gurdev, a Laboratory Attendant,
making an averment to the effect that the nature of work performed
by him was similar to that of the work done by the matriculate
Laboratory Attendant and therefore, he should be paid salary which JUDGMENT was being paid to other persons doing similar work on the principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’ laid down by this Court in the case of
Director General of Police and others v. Mrityunjoy Sarkar and
others, AIR 1997 SC 249.
8 It had been contended in the said suit, viz. Gurdev v. The State of
Punjab, that the plaintiff was a matriculate and was given pay scale
of Rs.75-105, whereas other persons doing similar work were put in
the pay scale of Rs.100-106 (the said pay-scales had been
subsequently revised). It was the case of the plaintiff that though he
was a matriculate, he was given appointment as a Laboratory
Attendant in the department of Industrial Training and Technical
Education by the Government of Punjab. Other Laboratory
Attendants were being given pay scale of Rs.100-106, though their
qualification and the qualification of the plaintiff were the same. The
case of the defendant-Government in the said case was that the
plaintiff, though a matriculate, was recruited for a non-matriculate
post and therefore, he was paid less salary than what was being paid
to the matriculate Laboratory Attendants.
9 Ultimately, the said suit had been decreed on the ground that the
plaintiff, though a matriculate, was recruited to a non matriculate post but was doing work which was done by other matriculate Laboratory
Attendants and therefore, on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal
work’ the plaintiff ought to have been given pay scale which was
given to matriculate Laboratory Attendants.
10 First appeal filed against the aforestated judgment delivered in Civil
Suit No.191 of 1986 had been dismissed and even the Second Appeal
had also been dismissed on 18th December, 1989
11 On the basis of the above judgment, several Laboratory Attendants
had filed petitions and they had also succeeded. One such petition
was filed by Shri Madan Gopal. His petition, CWP(T) No.2346 of
2008 was also allowed, believing that the facts of his case and the
facts of the plaintiff, who had filed the aforestated suit were similar.
12 The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the facts in the
case of Shri Gurdev vs. The State of Punjab and the facts involved in
the present appeals are quite different.
13 Shri Gurdev was appointed by the Government of Punjab and though
he was a matriculate, he was recruited to a post which was meant for
a non matriculate. Upon examination of the facts, the court had come
to a conclusion that the nature of work done by the said plaintiff and other matriculate Laboratory Attendants was same and therefore, Shri Gurdev had succeeded in the suit.
14 It has been further submitted that most of the respondents in the
instant case were appointed as Laboratory Attendants with a
qualification of standard 8th pass in the pay scale of Rs.750-1350
(revised). There is another post in the Education Department of
Laboratory Attendant having different nature of work in the pay scale
of Rs.810-1440 (revised). In the department wherein the respondents
are working, there is a promotional post of Laboratory Assistant,
which carries pay scale of Rs.950-1800 (revised).
15 The respondents in the instant case had claimed in the High Court that
instead of Rs.750-1350 (revised) pay scale, they should be put in the
pay scale of Rs.950-1800 (revised), which is a pay scale given to
Laboratory Assistants, which is a promotional post.
16 It is a fact that all the respondents were not matriculate at the time
they had been appointed and it is crystal clear that in the State of
Himachal Pradesh post of Laboratory Attendant and post of
Laboratory Assistant are different. Nature of work done by the
persons in these two different cadres is different. Even qualifications
required for appointment to both the posts are different. Qualification
required for being appointed to the post of Laboratory Attendant was passing of Standard eight at the relevant time and the post of the
Laboratory Assistant is a promotional post requiring higher
educational qualification.
17 In the circumstances, it has been submitted by the learned counsel
that the respondents are not entitled to higher scale of pay and the
High Court was in error while allowing their petitions on the ground
that in the case of Madan Gopal vs. State of H.P. the petitioner of the
said case had been given higher pay scale.
18 The learned counsel has successfully distinguished facts in the case of
Shri Gurdev vs. The State of Punjab on the basis of which the case of
Madan Gopal vs. State of H.P. had been decided. In the
circumstances, the impugned judgments should be quashed and set
aside and the appeals should be allowed.
19 On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
has supported the reasons given by the High Court in the impugned
judgments and has submitted that the respondents have been rightly
awarded higher pay scale by the High Court and therefore, the
appeals should be dismissed.
20 We have heard the learned counsel and have also perused the
judgment delivered in Civil Suit No.191 of 1986 by the sub Judge
First Class, Hoshiarpur and the impugned judgments. JUDGMENT
21 In our opinion, facts in the present cases are absolutely different. The
qualifications of the respondents before this Court and Shri Gurdev,
who had filed the aforestated suit are different. It is clear that the
respondents had prayed for pay scale which was being given to
persons holding a promotional post by contending that the nature of
work was similar. It is pertinent to note that pay scale of Laboratory
Attendants in different departments are different and the
qualifications of the respondents are also different. As Laboratory
Attendants, the respondents were in the pay scale of Rs.750-1350
(revised) whereas upon getting promotion to the post of Laboratory
Assistant, they would be getting pay scale of Rs.950-1800 (revised).
It is, thus, clear that the posts of Laboratory Attendant and Laboratory
Assistant are different and therefore, the respondents could not have
been paid pay scale which was being paid to the persons belonging to
a higher cadre.
22 It is also clear that disputed question of facts were involved in the
petitions because according to the respondents, who were petitioners
before the High Court, nature of work done by them was similar to
that of the work of other Laboratory Attendants or Laboratory Assistants. Without looking at the nature of work done by persons
working in different cadres in different departments, one cannot jump
to a conclusion that all these persons were doing similar type of work
simply because in a civil suit, one particular person had succeeded
after adducing evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the
High Court had examined the nature of work done by the respondents
and other persons who were getting higher pay scale. The High Court
had also not considered the fact that qualifications required for
appointment to both the posts were different. In our opinion, the
High Court should not have entertained all these petitions where
disputed questions of fact were required to be examined. Without
examining relevant evidence regarding exact nature of work, working
conditions and other relevant factors, it is not possible to come to a
conclusion with regard to similarity in the nature of work done by
persons belonging to different cadres and normally such exercise
should not be carried out by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.
It is settled law that the work of fixing pay scale is left to an expert
body like Pay Commission or other similar body, as held by this
Court in several cases, including the case of S.C. Chandra v. State of
Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279. Moreover, qualifications, experience,
etc. are also required to be examined before fixing pay scales. Such JUDGMENT
an exercise was not carried out in this case by the High Court.
23 For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the respondents
could not have been awarded higher pay scale simply because Shri
Gurdev had succeeded in a civil suit filed by him. The impugned
judgments, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside. We,
however, clarify that if the respondents are aggrieved by the salary
which is paid to them, it is open to them to approach an appropriate
forum for redressal of their grievances.
24 The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.