Bombay High Court
Mahendra F. Rupwate vs The State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 9 August, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
Vina K 1 wp1013-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1013 OF 2015
Shri. Mahendra F. Rupwate )
Section Officer, )
Office of the Registrar General, )
High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai )
and resident of A-1/5, Jai Santoshimata )
Co-op. Hsg. Society, Kopri Colony, )
Thane East 400 603. ) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra ig )
Through the Chief Secretary, )
General Administration Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai. )
)
2. The Principal Secretary, )
Finance Department, )
Government of Maharashtra, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai. )
)
3. The Principal Secretary, )
Law and Judiciary Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai. )
)
4. Registrar General, )
High Court, Appellate Side, )
Mumbai. ) ...Respondents
...
Mr. Sanjay Kulkarni for the Petitioner.
Smt. Poormina Kantharia Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 to 3
Mr. Rahul Nerlekar for Respondent No. 4
---
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:43:59 :::
Vina K 2 wp1013-15.odt
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 5th August,2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 9th August,2016
----
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per G. S. KULKARNI, J) :
1. Admit. Taken up for final hearing pursuant to the earlier
orders and by consent of the parties.
2.
The petitioner who is working as Section Officer, Class-II, in
the office of the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court has filed this
petition in a representative capacity on behalf of the Section Officers
working on the Appellate Side, Original Side at Mumbai and bench offices
at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa.
3. The petitioner has prayed for a writ under article 226 of the
Constitution of India to respondent No 1 to 3 to make applicable
revised pay scales as provided in the Government Resolution dated 11
February 2013 issued by the Finance Department of the Government of
Maharashtra, to the Section Officers on the High Court Administration,
from the date it has been made applicable to the Section Officers working
at Mantralaya (Government of Maharashtra), on the basis of parity of pay
Vina K 3 wp1013-15.odt
scales accepted by the Government between the Section Officers working
with the High Court and those working with the State Government at
Mantralaya.
4. In nut shell, the facts are:-
The case of the petitioner is that the Government of
Maharashtra since more than three decades has accepted that there would
be parity of pay scales between the staff of High Court and the staff of the
Mantralaya at Mumbai. The petitioner has referred to a letter dated 11
August, 1965 addressed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra to
the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, wherein it was
recorded that the Government in principle has agreed to grant a parity to
the High Court staff and the details were being worked out in consultation
with the Finance Department and therefore no further discussion in that
regard would be necessary. The petitioner has averred that a pay parity
being accepted to be maintained between the staff of Mantralaya and the
staff of the High Court, upto the level of post of Superintendent, is also
evident from a letter dated 19 August, 1967 addressed by the Deputy
Secretary, Government of Maharashtra to the Prothonotary Senior Master
of the Bombay High Court. The Petitioner also makes a reference to a
letter dated 8th April 1992 of the Deputy Secretary, Law and Judiciary
Vina K 4 wp1013-15.odt
Department, Government of Maharashtra addressed to the High Court
administration informing of the proposal of the merger of cadre of Senior
Superintendent and Superintendent in the High Court to be re-designated
as Section Officer (Class-II) being approved by the Hon'ble Governor of
Maharashtra.
5. Further it is the case of the petitioner that Writ Petition
No.4085 of 1986 was filed by one Arun Ambadasrao Deshmukh against
the State of Maharashtra and Ors. before the Aurangabad Bench of this
Court, for a prayer that the Section Officers in the High Court be granted
the Pay Scale of Rs.3000-4500 (unrevised) w.e.f. 1 January, 1986. In this
context, reliance of the petitioner is on the letter dated 28 September,
2005 whereby the Government of Maharashtra instructed the Government
Pleader that if the Section Officers in the High Court were awarded the
Pay Scale of Rs.3000-4500 then there would be a demand that the same
pay scale be awarded to the Section Officers in Mantralaya as well, which
will have financial repercussions. It is thus contended that the State
Government had even otherwise accepted the principle of pay parity
between the Section Officers working with the State Government and
those in the service of the High Court. A reference is also made by the
petitioner to the letter dated 21 October, 2005 of the Joint Secretary, Law
Vina K 5 wp1013-15.odt
and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra to the Assistant
Government Pleader, Aurangabad Bench referring to the recommendation
of Anomalies Committee to be confidential and that the report of the said
Committee cannot be produced in the context of parity.
6. It is the case of the petitioner, that the Government of
Maharashtra had issued Government Resolution dated 27 February, 2006
in its Finance Department by which the Section Officers in the
Government of Maharashtra were awarded a revised pay scale of
Rs.8,000-13,500 w.e.f from 1 October 2003 or from the date from which
the incumbent completed four years of regular service on the post of
Section Officer. The petitioner avers that this Government Resolution was
to be made applicable to the Section Officers working with the High Court
administration. The Government of Maharashtra accordingly issued a
Government Resolution dated 29 January, 2010 making applicable the
revised Pay Scale of Rs.8000-13500 to the Section Officers on the High
Court administration as being granted to the Section Officers working at
Mantralaya. Accordingly, Section Officers working with the High Court
administration were extended the benefit of the Government Resolution
dated 27th February, 2006. The Government accordingly maintained a
parity between the Section Officers working at Mantralaya with those
Vina K 6 wp1013-15.odt
working on the High Court administration.
7. It is the petitioner's case that G.R. Dated 27 February 2006
revising pay scale of Section Officers of Mantralya was issued pursuant to
the recommendations of the Anomalies Committee, although no proposal
on behalf of the Section officers of High Court was sent before the
Anomalies Committee. Notwithstanding the same, based on the said
Government Resolution dated 27 February 2006, the Government
Resolution dated 29 January 2010 came to be issued granting parity. Thus
it was never a case of the State Government, that claim of Section Officers
of the High Court, was not placed or ought to be placed before the
Anomalies Committee.
8. The petitioner has also relied on the report of the 2 nd
Maharashtra Pay Commission (1975-1977) Part-I popularly known as
Justice Bhole Pay Commission. It is stated that the terms of Reference of
this Commission would indicate that the Commission was to review the
existing pay-scales and suggest revised scales after taking into account,
amongst other parameters, duties and responsibilities attached to the
posts and qualifications and experience prescribed for recruitment thereto,
so as to resolve anomalies, if any, in the existing pay-scales. The Bhole
Vina K 7 wp1013-15.odt
Pay Commission in para 8.135 and para 8.149 (page nos.67-68 of the
Report) observed as under:
"........
8.135. From the existing pay structure of the High Court staff, it is seen
that there is parity of pay scales between the High Court staff and the
Mantralaya Departments staff upto the level of Superintendent. It appears
that it was not considered feasible to establish a similar parity in respect of
higher levels.
... ... ... ...
8.149. Assistant Registrar (9) :Rs.700-1050 (880-1210)
We have accepted the High Court's suggestion to equate these posts
with Under Secretary in Mantralaya. Accordingly we have recommended
Grade 16 (Rs.1000-1500) for them.
8.150. There is at present parity in the pay scales of Superintendents and
below as between the High Court and Mantralaya ................".
(emphasis supplied)
9. Then reliance is also placed on the Justice Naik Committee
Report which recommended a Pay Scale to the Superintendent (now
Section Officer) of Rs.2000-3500 with remark "As in Mantralaya"
showing the pay parity. It is thus the Petitioner's case that the expert
committees have undertaken an appropriate exercise before awarding the
parity to the Section officers with that of their counterparts at Mantralaya
and the same was always accepted by the Government. That pay parity
has been maintained all throughout in pursuance to the recommendations
Vina K 8 wp1013-15.odt
of the expert bodies. The petitioner has drawn our attention to the
comparative statement of pay scales of Section Officers since the Bhole
Pay Commission as under:
No. Pay Commission / Supdt./Section Supdt./Section
Committee Officer Mantralaya Officer High
Court
1 Bhole Pay Commission 500-900 500-900
2 Naik Pay Committee 2000-3500 2000-3500
SO.High Court
(As in
Mantralaya)
3 5th Pay Sukhtankar 6500-10500
ig 6500-10500
Committee
4 Pursuant to Anomalies Non Functional pay Non Functional
Committee 8000-13500 as per Pay of 8000-
Recommendations GR dated 13500 As per GR
27/2/2006 dated 29/1/2010
w.e.f. 1/10/2003 or making GR dated
after continuous 27/2/2006
service of 4 years, applicable
which ever is
earlier
5 6th Pay Hakim Committee 9300-34800 GP 9300 -34800
4400 After 4 years GP 4400
9300-34800 GP After 4 years
5400 9300 - 34800 GP
6 Pursuant to Anomalies 9300-34800 The pay scale is
Committee GP4800 After 4 claimed by SO
Recommendations years 15600-39100 High Court in the
GP 5400 as per GR present petition.
dated 11/2/2013
10. Thereafter, the Government of Maharashtra through its
Vina K 9 wp1013-15.odt
Finance Department issued Government Resolution dated 11 February
2013 re-revising the pay scale of the Section Officers in Mantralaya in the
6th Pay from Rupees 9300-34800 Grade Pay 4400 to Rupees 9300-34800
Grade Pay 4800 and after putting in regular service of four years from
Rupees 9300-34800 to Rupees 34800 Grade Pay 5400 to Rupees 15600
-39100 Grade Pay 5400.
11. As the Government Resolution dated 11 February 2013
pertained to the Section Officers working at Mantralaya, the Petitioner
contends that it was expected that the same would be made applicable to
the Section Officers of the High Court. However, it was not so
implemented. Therefore, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble the
Chief Justice, the Registrar (Personnel) of the High Court addressed a
letter dated 10 April 2013 to the Principal Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra, Law and Judiciary Department, recording that in view of the
acceptance of the parity of pay scales amongst the staff of the High Court
and that of Mantralaya, the Government Resolution dated 11 th February,
2013 be made applicable to the Section Officers working on the High
Court (Appellate Side and Original Side) and its bench offices at Nagpur,
Aurangabad, Goa with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 1 January, 2006
notionally and the actual benefit of the Pay Scale w.e.f. 10 April 2013.
Vina K 10 wp1013-15.odt
12. The petitioner has averred, that however the Additional
Secretary, Government of Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department by
his letter dated nil/October 2014, received by the office of the Registrar
(Personnel) on 30 October, 2014 stated that there was a pay Anomalies
Committee, and that the Section Officers of the High Court did not
forward their proposal to the said committee for revision of pay scale of
the Sections Officers. It is recorded that after revision of pay scale of the
Section Officers of Mantralaya, the pay revision has been asked by the
Section Officers of the High Court as also there were several
representations received from other departments and that all the
representations will be considered together.
13. The petitioner thereafter made an application to the Registrar
(Personnel) of the High Court requesting for copies of the necessary
documents showing parity of pay scale with the Section Officers of
Mantralaya to be provided to them. This came to be furnished to the
petitioner by the letter dated 3 March 2015.
14. The petitioner contends that there was no reason whatsoever
that the revised pay scale which came to be granted under Government
Resolution dated 11 February 2013 to the Section Officers working at
Vina K 11 wp1013-15.odt
Mantralaya, should not be made applicable to the Section Officers
working on the High Court administration on its Appellate Side / Original
Side and bench offices at Nagpur, Aurangabad, Goa and more particularly
when the parity to that effect was accepted since the year 1965. The
petitioner has thus before us in the present petition being aggrieved by the
inaction on the part of the Government of Maharashtra to a grant to the
petitioner and similarly placed Section Officers the benefit of Government
Resolution dated 11 February, 2013.
15. The Government of Maharashtra (respondent nos.1 to 3) has
appeared and has filed an affidavit of opposition of Mr. Neeraj Pradeep
Dhote, Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya
wherein the affiant has categorically admitted that by the Government
Resolution dated 29 January, 2010, the Pay Scale of Rupees 8000-13500
made applicable to the Section Officers of Mantralaya was made
applicable to the Section Officers on the High Court establishment. It is
not in dispute that the effect of this Government Resolution was that the
pay revision applicable under Government Resolution dated 27 February,
2006 to the Section Officers of Mantralaya was also made applicable to
the Section Officers working with the High Court. However, the affiant
states that the revision of pay under Government Resolution dated 11
Vina K 12 wp1013-15.odt
February, 2013 as prayed to be implemented in favour of the Section
Officers of the High Court, was based on the recommendations as made
by the Pay Anomalies Redressal Committee. It is stated that as per the
report of the said Committee, the recommendation of the revised Pay
Scale of Rs.9300-34800 plus Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- is only applicable to
the Section Officers of Mantralaya, on their rendering four years of
regular service. It is stated that this is on the basis of the observations as
made by the Pay Anomalies Committee, in respect of the nature of the
work of the Section Officers at Mantralaya. It is next contended on behalf
of the State Government that various departments of the Government of
Maharashtra were asked to submit their proposals to the Pay Anomalies
Committee, for revision of pay scales, however, proposal of the Section
Officers working with the High Court was not received by respondent
no.2 to enable it to be placed before the said Anomalies Committee. It is
further stated that the proposals to be received from various departments
would be placed before the said Committee to be constituted for
consideration of revision of Pay Scale at the time of 7 th Pay Commission.
The affiant further refers to the nature of duties of the Section officers at
Mantralaya which were considered by the Anomalies Committee so as to
grant the revised pay scales.
Vina K 13 wp1013-15.odt
16. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 9
November, 2015 interalia contesting the stand taken by the State
Government. The petitioner contends that the Government Resolution
dated 29 January, 2010, by which the revised pay scale of the Section
Officers of Mantralaya were made applicable to the Section officers of the
High Court was itself issued on the basis of recommendations of the
Anomalies Committee, without which the same could not have been made
applicable to the Section officers of the High Court. Thus all aspects of
parity were taken into consideration while applying the revised pay scales
under Government Resolution dated 27 February 2006. It is contended
that when the effect of Government Resolution dated 27 February 2006
was granted to the Section Officers of the High Court by Government
Resolution dated 29 January 2010, at that point of time the Section
Officers on the High Court establishment were not called upon to appear
before the Anomalies Committee. Nonetheless the pay parity was granted
to the Section Officers of the High Court with that of the Section Officers
working at Mantralaya. It is thus submitted that the contention of the
Government of Maharashtra that the Section officers of the High Court
were required to approach the Anomalies Committee is not correct. The
Petitioners contend that thus the Section Officers of the High Court and
the Section officers working at Mantralaya were always considered at par,
Vina K 14 wp1013-15.odt
and pay parity was accordingly granted from time to time. It is contended
that the historical background in this regard was clear which is also
confirmed by all the previous actions taken by the State Government.
17. On behalf of the Government of Maharashtra (respondent
nos.1 to 3), an additional affidavit of Rajendra Dattaram Sawant, Legal
Advisor-cum-Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department is filed
reiterating the contention as urged in the first affidavit of opposition. It is
interalia stated that the proposal of the Section Officers of the High Court
was not before the Pay Anomalies Committee and that unless this said
exercise is completed by the Pay Anomalies Committee it cannot be
assumed that the Section Officers of the High Court should be treated at
par with the Section Officers at Mantralaya and be granted a parity of the
revised pay scales. The petitioner by the further affidavit has disputed the
contention as urged in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the
Government of Maharashtra.
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader for the Government of Maharashtra
(respondent nos.1 to 3) and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the High Court administration (respondent no.4).
Vina K 15 wp1013-15.odt
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the
prayers in the writ petition, submits that the Section Officers on the High
Court establishment on its Appellate Side / Original Side and its Benches
at Nagpur, Augurangabad and Goa are legitimately entitled to revised Pay
Scale as made applicable to the Section Officers working at Mantralaya
under the Government Resolution dated 11 February 2013. It is
submitted that the parity of the pay scales between these two cadres is
well accepted by the State Government. It is submitted that this position
is also clear from the recommendations / report of the Bhole Committee,
Naik Committee and lastly the Hakim Committee (supra). The learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied on the correspondence as we have
noted above on the basis of which it is contended that historically the
State Government has accepted parity between the Section Officers
working at Mantralaya with those working on the High Court
administration. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that
the issuance of Government Resolution dated 29 th January, 2010 making
applicable to the Section Officers of the High Court, the revised pay scale,
as granted to their counterparts at Mantralaya (vide Government
Resolution dated 27 February, 2006), leaves no manner of doubt, as
regards the parity of pay scale, accorded by the State Government to the
Vina K 16 wp1013-15.odt
Section Officers working on the High Court establishment. It is therefore
submitted that the action on the part of the State Government in not
granting the benefits of Government Resolution dated 11 February 2013
to the Section Officers of the High Court was contrary to the principle of
parity as accepted and implemented by the State Government. It is
submitted that the contention as urged in the affidavit of opposition that
the proposal of the Section Officers of the High Court was not before the
Anomalies Committee is also untenable, as the benefit of Government
Resolution dated 27 February 2006 which was itself on the basis of the
recommendation of the Anomalies Committee was made applicable to the
Section Officers of the High Court by Government Resolution dated 29
January 2010. It is therefore submitted that the petition deserves to
succeed in view of the clear facts, that the State Government at all
material times had accepted parity between the Section Officers of the
Mantralaya with those working with the High Court. In support of his
submission, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on
the decision in the case of "Harayana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells
Corporation & Ors. Vs. G.S.Uppal & Ors.1".
20. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader in the
course of her submissions opposing writ petition, has made submissions
1(AIR 2008 SC 2152)
Vina K 17 wp1013-15.odt
on the grounds as urged in the counter affidavit's filed on behalf of the
State Government. It is contended that the Anomalies Committee is
required to undertake an exercise to confer a parity and that no proposal
in that regard was received from the Section Officers working on the High
Court establishment and thus the benefit of Government Resolution dated
11 February 2013 cannot be granted to the Section Officers of the High
Court. The learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the
decisions in State of UP and Ors. Vs. J. P. Chaurasia & Ors. 2; State of
Harayana Vs. Civil Secretarial Personnel Staff Association 3; State of
Punjab and Anr. Vs. Surjit Singh and Ors.4.
21. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we
have perused the documents placed in the paper book and also the
Government Resolution which are referred and relied by the parties.
22. On examining the material on record we find that the there is
much substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner. It is
not disputed that the Government has accepted pay parity between the
staff of Mantralaya and the High Court staff and the same is reflected in
2(1989) 1 SCC 121
3(2002) 6 SCC 72
4 (2009) 9 SCC 514
Vina K 18 wp1013-15.odt
the communication dated 11 August, 1965 of the Hon'ble Chief Minister
to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. Further there is no
dispute on the acceptance of the pay parity up to the level of
Superintendent as recorded in the letter of the Government dated 18
August 1967 which we have noted above. Further the recommendations /
report of the Bhole Committee, Naik Committee and the Hakim
Committee, fully supports the contention of the Petitioner on parity of pay
scales. These reports of the said committees are acted upon and
implemented by the State Government, so as to maintain the parity
between these two sets of Section Officers. Further there is no dispute that
this position of parity was also accepted by the State Government as
informed to the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad, as made clear
by the State Government in the letter dated 29 September 2005 addressed
to the Government Pleader. These documents clearly indicate that the
Section Officer on the High Court establishment were treated by the State
Government at par with those working at Mantralaya by granting them
the same pay scale. The State Government has also not disputed this
position.
23. It is significant that the things do not stop at this. By
Government Resolution dated 27 February 2006 issued in pursuance of
Vina K 19 wp1013-15.odt
the recommendation of the Anomalies Committee the pay scale of the
Section Officers of Mantralaya were revised and notional benefit was
given from 1 October 2003 and actual benefit from 1 April 2006.
Admittedly there was no participation of the Section Officers of the High
Court before the Anomalies Committee. Nonetheless, State Government
issued Government Resolution dated 29 January 2010 making applicable
to the Section Officers of the High Court the Government Resolution dated
27 February 2006 granting benefit of the revised pay scale as made
available to the Section Officers working at Mantralaya, though the actual
benefit was give from 1 February 2010.
24. Thus, issuance of Government Resolution dated 29 January
2010 compounds the position that the State Government always
recognized the parity between the Section Officers working at Mantralaya
with those working on the High Court Establishment. There is no dispute
whatsoever in this regard in the opposition affidavit as filed on behalf of
the State Government or on the basis of any other material referred on
behalf of the State Government or on any other issue of fact or law. If this
be the admitted position on record then we fail to appreciate as to how
the State Government can deviate from this position and not continue
with the accepted course of parity by not applying the revised pay scale
Vina K 20 wp1013-15.odt
under Government Resolution dated 11 February 2013, made applicable
to the Section Officers working at Mantralaya.
25. Before us the only contention as urged on behalf of the State
Government not to grant the benefit of the Government Resolution dated
11 February 2013 to the Section Officers of the High Court, is that the no
proposal was received from the Section Officers of the High Court before
the Anomalies Committee. We do not find any substance in this
contention, for the reason that there is nothing placed on record on behalf
of the Government to show that any such proposal was called from the
Section Officers of the High Court to be placed before the Anomalies
Committee. The learned Government Pleader fairly concedes that there is
no material to show that after the last parity between the Section Officers
of the High Court with their counterparts at Mantralaya, was accepted
vide Government Resolution dated 29 January 2010, the Section Officers
were at any point of time called upon or were required by the
Government to establish a pay parity. Asking the Section Officers of the
High Court to submit a proposal for revision of Pay scales or for
application of Government Resolution dated 11 February 2013 would
have been definitely a deviation from the previously accepted course
adopted by the State.
Vina K 21 wp1013-15.odt
26. Be that as it may if the contention as urged by the State
Government is to be accepted then logically as also what would sound to
reason, is that such a course of action should have been preceded by
some action in that direction, and there would be some material to show,
that the State Government really desired the Section officers of the High
Court to be before the Anomalies Committee. This would be significant to
establish that the Government intended to deviate from the long accepted
position of parity which it had accepted right from the year 1965 till the
issuance of Government Resolution dated 29 January 2010, whereby the
revised pay scales under Government Resolution dated 27 February 2006
as applicable to the Section Officers at Mantralaya came to be made
applicable to the Section Officers on the High Court establishment.
However there is not the remotest material which would persuade us to
accept that the stand as taken by the Government has some foundation.
We thus unhesitatingly conclude that the assertion on the Government
that the Section officers of the High Court should have approached the
Anomalies Committee is simply without any basis.
27. For another reason we cannot accept the contention on behalf
of the State, of the non-submission of the proposal of the Section officers
Vina K 22 wp1013-15.odt
of the High Court to the Anomalies Committee as a ground not to grant
benefit of Government Resolution dated 10 February 2013 as granted to
their counter parts at Mantralaya. It is undisputed that the revised pay
scale under Government Resolution dated 27 February 2006 was as a
result of an exercise undertaken by the Anomalies Committee. These,
recommendations of the Anomalies Committee were ipso facto made
applicable to the Section Officers of the High Court, when admittedly no
proposal of the Section officers of the High Court was sent before the
Anomalies Committee, despite which the revised pay scales under the
Government Resolution dated 27 February 2006 were made applicable to
the Section officers of the High Court. The Government at that point never
thought of the necessity of the Anomalies Committee to examine the
parity of the Section Officers of the High Court as now sought to be
contended. The Government in fact never felt it necessary to do so more
particularly in view of the long accepted parity between these two set of
employees.
28. In our view, another reason for which the contention on
behalf of the State Government, that only because the Section Officers of
the High Court were not before the Anomalies Committee and therefore
the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 11 February 2013 cannot
Vina K 23 wp1013-15.odt
be granted to the Section Officers of the High Court, deserves to be
rejected and that is in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in
the case of Nain Singh Bhakuni & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr 5, in
which their Lordships observed has held that merely because the
appellant therein had not gone to the board of Arbitration would not dis-
entitled them to the benefit of the relief which was already granted. The
Supreme Court observed as under:-
"We agree with the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that
merely because the appellants had not gone to the Board of
Arbitration, if the relief given to the CPWD Draftsmen by the said
Board of Arbitration which was accepted by the authorities
become available to the appellants who were identically situated
and were doing the same type of work as Draftsmen in other
departments of the Government, the question whether they had
gone for similar arbitration or not would pale into insignificance.
29. Admittedly this is not a case where the State Government for
some justifiable reasons has withdrawn the parity which came to be
granted by a Government Resolution dated 10 February 2010. The State
Government also has not come with a case that the nature of duties i.e.
qualifications,, functions, responsibilities etc. of the Section officers
working at High Court are different from the Section Officers working at
5(1998) 3 SCC 348
Vina K 24 wp1013-15.odt
Mantralaya. In fact a categorical assertion on the part of the petitioner in
the comparative chart showing the similarity of the duties responsibilities
and other conditions of service between the Section Officers of the High
Court to those in Mantralaya goes un-traversed by the State Government.
It is thus a case that the parity is being denied only because the Section
officers have not approached the anomaly committee, when admittedly
they were never called upon to do so. Moreover, as noted above, the State
Government always and at all relevant times treated, both the Section
Officers working in Mantralaya and working at High Court administration,
at par for the purpose of pay scale and this was not without any basis but
on recommendations/ reports of the different committees which we have
noted above. No other ground, factual or legal, has been asserted on
behalf of the State Government to deny to the Section Officers the benefits
of the Government Resolution dated 11 February 2013. This is thus in our
opinion a clear case where the guarantee enshrined under Articles 14 and
16 is being deprived to the Section Officers of the High Court. If the
position of parity between the parties has continued to operate for such a
long period that is almost from the year 1965, then, there is no reason
why the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of equality and non discrimination
is not available to the Section Officers of the High Court. Considering the
facts of the case in its entirety, the paramount consideration which would
Vina K 25 wp1013-15.odt
weigh with us is to enforce the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution qua the Section Officers of the High Court, as we are of the
clear opinion that the impugned action of the State Government has
resulted in breach of these fundamental rights of the Section Officers.
Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the
limited defence of the Respondent-State, the mandate of Articles 14 and
16 cannot be nullified in not granting such benefit so as to deprive the
Petitioners of the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 11
February 2013.
30. Our above conclusion in our opinion is also supported by the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Harayana State Minor
Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors. Vs. G.S.Uppal & Ors., (AIR
2008 SC 2152)", which is almost proximate to the issue involved in the
present case. In this case the Supreme Court was considering an issue as
regards the pay revision which was granted to the engineers of the State
Government and was also granted to the engineers of the Government
Corporation with effect from 1 January 1986 thereby maintaining parity.
What was not extended to the Corporation employees, which was the
issue in the decision was a further revision by way of "removal of anomaly
in pay scale given to AEE/AC/SDO/SDE of the State Government with
Vina K 26 wp1013-15.odt
effect from 1 May 1989. The Supreme Court in this context observed as
under:-
"23. A careful examination shows that the issue was not
really about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers
on par with PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took
place, the revised pay scales that were given to the
Engineers of the State Government were also given to the
engineers of the Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986
thereby maintaining the parity. What was not extended to
the Corporation employees, which is the subject matter of
the grievance, is the further revision by way of 'removal of
anomaly in pay scales' given to AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the
State Government with effect from 1.5.1989 vide circular
dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real
question would be whether what is given by way of
anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of State
Government, should automatically be extended to the
corresponding categories of engineers of the Corporation.
When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the
pay scale given to a class of Government servants and
such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but
a correction of the original pay revision, or an
amendment to the pay scale that has already been
granted. Therefore, where the pay revision extended to the
government servants has already been extended to the
employees of the Corporation also, it follows that any
Vina K 27 wp1013-15.odt
correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the
government servants should also be made in the case of
those who were earlier given parity by extending the pay
scale which is the subject matter of the correction. It
should be borne in mind that the question whether
Corporation engineers were on par with PWD Engineers
and should be given parity in pay scales was already
decided when the pay scale revision granted to
Government (PWD) engineers was extended to the
corporation Engineers also with effect from 1.1.1986.
That question did not again arise when the anomaly in
the pay revision was rectified with reference to the
Government engineers. When the anomaly in the pay
scale of Government engineers was rectified, the
rectification should apply to Corporation engineers also to
maintain the parity."
(emphasis supplied)
31. From the observations of the Supreme Court in the above
decision the position which becomes absolutely clear is that, once the pay
revision was already extended to the Section Officers of the High Court by
virtue of Government Resolution dated 10 February 2010, it would follow
that correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale granted to the Section
Officers of Mantralaya by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 11
February 2013 is required to be made applicable to the Section Officers of
the High Court as they were earlier granted parity, by extending the Pay
Vina K 28 wp1013-15.odt
Scale which was the subject matter of correction by the Anomalies
Committee. What would also instantly emanate from the above
observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court is that the highest
Constitutional guarantee conferred under Articles 14 and 16 which are the
fundamental rights, cannot be permitted to be taken away on such a weak
plea that there was no proposal put forward before the Anomalies
Committee. It is of extreme significance that in the present case the parity
is not new, it is granted, followed and implemented since 1965. This is
another reason as to why the benefit of the Government Resolution in
question dated 11 February 2013 ought to be granted to the Section
Officers of the High Court.
32. We now refer to the decisions as relied by the learned
Government Pleader. The reliance on behalf of the Respondent-State on
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP and Ors. Vs.
J. P. Chaurasia & Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 121, is not well founded. There can
be no dispute on the proposition as laid down in the said decision that the
Courts are not suited to evaluate to compare on the basis of affidavit and
pleadings the issue in regard to pay parity and that such matter is
required to be decided by the executive by appointing and Expert body for
the purpose. We are surely not doing so. The facts of the case in hand
Vina K 29 wp1013-15.odt
however as noted above are completely different. In our opinion, the Sate
Government has taken a peculiar and strange stand by contending for the
first time that the Anomalies Committee would be required to look into
issue. As observed by us, such a plea is completely unsupported by any
documents. It thus appears to be some kind of casual assertion to defend
this petition without any factual or documentary foundation considering
the facts of the case. We may observe that in fact everything was at the
disposal of the State Government to take all necessary steps whichever
required in law and to ensure that the Section Officers of the High Court
are also granted appropriate revision of pay scale, if their counterparts at
Mantralaya were so granted under Government Resolution dated 11
February 2013. However, it is absolutely clear that no steps of any nature
in that regard were taken on the part of the State Government. We may
also note that though the State Government accepted pay parity in 2006,
the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 27 February 2006 was
belatedly granted to the Section Officers only in January,2010 which is on
a delay of about four years. It thus appears, that the intention of the State
Government, was only to delay and not grant any benefit of the pay
revision to the Section Officer of the High Court and the same was
granted only to the Section Officers working at Mantralaya by turning a
blind eye to the Section Officers of the High Court. This approach is
Vina K 30 wp1013-15.odt
clearly hit by the guarantee of equality and non discrimination as
conferred under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. These
Constitutional rights cannot be permitted to be tinkered in this manner by
the State Government.
33. The decision of the Supreme Court in "State of Harayana Vs.
Civil Secretarial Personnel Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72" also
would not assist the respondent-State Government, in the facts of the
present case. This was the case where the Harayana Government
accepted the report of the Forth Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 1 January
1986. It granted to the Personal Assistants working in its Civil Secretariat
the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 plus 150 as special pay, whereas the Central
Government had revised the pay scale of personal assistants working in
the Central Secretariat to Rs.2000-3500. The State Government however,
granted the selection Grade of Rs.2000-3200 to the Personal Assistants
having completed 12 years service upto maximum of 20% of the post. At
the instance of the respondents in the said case the High Court had held
that the Personal Assistants of the Haryana Civil Secretariat, be granted
the scale of Rs.2000-3500 from 1 January 1986 and left the issue of
special pay to be considered by the State Government relying on the
principle of equal pay for equal work. It is in this context, the Supreme
Court observed that the High Court had not made any comparison of the
Vina K 31 wp1013-15.odt
nature of duties and responsibilities in the qualification for recruitment for
the post of Personal Assistants in State Civil Secretariat with those of
Personal Assistants of the Central Secretariat. The Supreme Court
observed that such issues ought to have been left for consideration of the
Government and that such a scale ought not to have been granted. The
reliance on this decision on behalf of the State in its application to the
facts of the present case is, therefore, not well founded.
34. In State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Surjit Singh and Ors.
(2009) 9 SCC 514, the Supreme Court was concerned with the issue of
the equal pay for equal work. The respondents in the case were admitted
as daily wagers and some of them were appointed on a requisition from
the Employment Exchange, no recruitment process was followed. They
were paid wages on the terms and conditions as contained in the
appointment letter. The respondents asserted that, they had put in
number of years of service, and thus they were entitled to benefit of equal
pay for equal work. They had approached the High Court. The writ
petitions were allowed. On this background, the Supreme Court
considering the law on the issue directed the State Government to
examine the case of the respondents by appointing an Expert Committee
so as to ascertain whether the demand of the respondents can be granted.
The facts therefore are completely different from the present case. In the
Vina K 32 wp1013-15.odt
case in hand the Government has never disputed parity between the said
two categories of Section Officers.
35. In view of the clear position of parity between the Section
Officers of the High Court to those working with Mantralaya, the stand
taken by the State Government is quite surprising and is completely
contrary, not only to the record but to the clear established position that
the State Government always treated the Section Officers on the High
Court establishment at par with those working at Mantralaya. We,
therefore, see no justification for the State Government to withhold the
benefit of the Government Resolution dated 11 February 2013 to the
Section Officers of the High Court. We are, thus, inclined to accept the
contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner that there is a pay parity
between the Section Officers of the High Court and the Section Officers
working at Mantralaya. As such the Section Officers of the High Court
are entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution dated 11 February
2013.
36. As a result, we allow the present writ petition in terms of
prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-
"(a) By a suitable writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to direct the Respondents to make applicable the
Vina K 33 wp1013-15.odt
Government Resolution No.VePuR-1212/Pra.Kra.31/Seva-9
dated 11 February 2013 issued by the Finance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai to the Section Officers working in the
High Court (Appellate Side, Original side and its Bench Offices
at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa) from the date as it has been
made applicable to the Section Officers working in Mantralaya
on the basis of parity pay scales between the staff of High Court
and staff of Mantralaya."
37. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. No
orders as to costs.
(G.S.KULKARNI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
