1. Heard Shri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State respondents and also perused the record.
2. This writ petiton under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners with following prayers: -
i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 3.1.2008 and 11.1.2007 (contained in Annexures 1 & 2 to the writ petition);
ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant pay scale of Rs.5000 - 8000 to the stenographers grade - II working in the Commercial Tax (Trade Tax) Department in the State of U.P. w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits;
iii) grant such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the special circumstances of the present case; and
iv) Award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.
3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide Government Order dated 17.2.2002 the pay scale of various grades in the Commercial Tax (Trade Tax) Department (hereinafter referred to as the Department) has been fixed as under: -
4. It was further submitted that appointments in Stenographer Grade II cadre are made through direct recruitment and rest of three posts are by promotion, and the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade II is (i) Intermediate; (ii) Speed of 80 wpm in short hand; (iii) 25 wpm typing speed. The stenographer of the same cadre, working with the Central Government, have been granted pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, though the duty and function of stenographer grade II in the department of Uttar Pradesh is absolutely identical with the stenographer working in the Central Government. Stenographer working in Grade III in Central Government are required to have passed only high school examination. There are five grades of stenographer cadre in the Central Governmnet, whereas in the State of U.P. There are only 4 grades. The stenographer grade II in the Department were earlier getting pay scale of Rs.470-735. The pay scale was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and they were given pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. For other ministerial cadres pay scale of Rs.470-755 was revised to Rs.1350-2200.
5. It was further submitted that the State Government has principally agreed vide order dated 14.10.1988 that employees of the State Government shall be given the same pay scale, which is being drawn by the employees of the Central Government working on equivalent posts. It was further submitted that liability and responsibility of both, Stenographer Grade II in the Central Government as well as in the Department in Uttar Pradesh is one and the same. It was further submitted that several representations were made to the State Government again and again, but the they were rejected vide impugned order dated 3.10.2008 without assigning any reason.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that employees of the State Government were claiming pay scale equivalent to the pay scale of Central Government and in pursuance of the aforesaid claim, Samta Samiti was constituted for comparative study and appropriate recommendation. Samta Samiti gave its recommendation, and on its recommendation pay scale of Rs.470-735 (lowest grade in stenographer cadre) has been revised to Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986, which is at par with the lowest grade of stenographer in Central Government. The pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 was never sanctioned for stenographer cadre either to the State Govenment's employees, or to the Central Government's cadre of stenographers, so there is no reason to provide the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 in place of Rs.1200-2040, and accordingly, the representation was rejected vide order dated 11.1.2007, and in pursuance thereof the matter was communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 3.1.2008. It was further submitted that service conditions of Central Government and State Government employees are different.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the cases of (1) State of Orissa and others v. Balaram Sahu and others, (2003) 1 SCC 250; (2) State of West Bengal and others v. Pantha Chatterjee and others, (2003) 6 SCC 469; (3) Arindam Chattopadhyay and others v. State of West Bengal and others, (2013) 4 SCC 152; and (4) Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1988 SC 1663.
8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Pradip Kumar Dey, (2000) 8 SCC 580.
9. Before entering into the impact of decisions referred to by both the parties, it would be prudent to go through the factual aspect of the matter.
10. Admittedly, the appointment in stenographer grade II of the Department is an initial appointment, and stenographer grade I is a promotional post. This fact has been mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition, and it has not been denied by the State in the counter affidavit.
11. Annexure 5 is Swamy's Compilation of Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1997. On page 72 of this rules stenographer grade II is mentioned, and revised scale is Rs.5000-150-8000. Parity of the said grade is being sought by the petitioners.
12. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. Along with this rejoinder affidavit Annexure RA-2 is notification of the Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes) in which a schedule has been annexed. In this schedule item no.3 is stenographer grade II whose pay scale is Rs.5000-150-8000. This schedule goes to show that this cadre of stenographer grade II is a cadre to be achieved by promotion.
13. A comparative study of this admitted position regarding stenographer grade II of the Department goes to show that it is not a promotional post while stenographer grade II in Central Government Services is the post of promotion. In item no.4 (Annexure RA-2) stenographer grade III is mentioned whose pay scale is Rs.4000-100-6000 and it is the post, which is to be filled by direct recruitment. From the above it is crystal clear that stenographer grade II post in the petitioner's Department is equivalent post of stenographer grade III in the Central Government.
14. In the case of State of Orissa and others v. Balaram Sahu and others (supra) the Apex Court has held that "though "equal pay for equal work" is considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 as much as "equal pay for unequal work" will also be a negation of that right, equal pay would depend upon not only the nature or the volume of work, but also on the qualitative difference as regareds reliability and responsibility as well and though the functions may be the same, but the responsibilities do make a real and substantial difference."
15. The Apex Court has, in the above decision, further held that "substantial similarity in duties and responsibilities and interchangeability of posts may not also necessarily attract the principle of "equal pay for equal work" when there are other distinguishing features like exucational qualifications for appointment, mode of recruitment, status, nature of duteis, functions, measure of responsibility and overall duties and responsibilities even outside duty house."
16. In the case of Union of India and others v. Pradip Kumar Dey (supra) the Apex Court relying upon its earlier decisions in the cases of State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 and State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 has held in para 12 that "The principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. The principle was originally enunciated as a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India, however, this Court said that this was a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies and held that the principle had to be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In that case a Driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration claimed equal salary as other Drivers and this prayer was granted. The same principle was subsequently followed for the purpose of granting relief in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. [(1986) 1 SCC 637] and Jaipal v. State of Haryana [(1988) 3 SCC 354]. In the case of Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) v. Union of India [(1988) 3 SCC 91], however, this Court explained the principle of equal pay for equal work by holding that differentiation in pay scales among government servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. In that case different pay scales fixed for Stenographers (Grade I) working in the Central Secretariat and those attached to the heads of subordinate offices on the basis of a recommendation of the Pay Commission was held as not violating Article 14 and as not being contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work. This Court also said that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the court."
17. The Apex Court has, in the above decision, again relied upon the decision in the case of Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568 and held in para 13 that "It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realize that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is also being misunderstood and misapplied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board."
18. The decision of Apex Court clearly indicates that interfering with the prescribed pay scale is serious matter and the pay commisison, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue.
19. In the light of the fact that stenographer grade II of the Department is a cadre of initial appointment and stenographer grade II in Central Government is promotional post, the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in the cases of Arindam Chattopadhyay and others v. State of West Bengal and others (supra) and Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana and others (supra) are not helpful to the cause of the petitioners, as their facts are different and they are on different footing.
21. As discussed above, the cadre of stenographer grade II in the Central Government is promotional post, and cadre of stenographer grade II in the Department is not promotional post, then it cannot be said that these two posts are equivalent and at par, and the petitioners are entitled to the grade of Rs.5000-6000 on parity basis.
22. As discussed above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2014 Anupam (Justice Arvind Kumar Tripathi - II)