Himachal Pradesh High Court
Presently Posted As Sanitary vs Satish on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 4THOF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION)
NOS. 5761 OF 2020, 4921, 4923 AND 4929 OF 2020
CWPOA NO. 5761 OF 2020
Between:
CHYOT,DISTRICT
r to
VIRENDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI
SANT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
MANDAGLU, P.O. &
MANDI,
TEHSIL
H.P.
PRESENTLY POSTED AS SANITARY
INSPECTOR, SADA, GHANAHATTI,
TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY SH. B.S. ATTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (TCP) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA171002.
::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2022 20:06:30 :::CIS
2
2. DIRECTOR, TOWN &
COUNTRY PLANNING,
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA171002.
3. DEPUTY
.
COMMISSIONERCUM
CHAIRMAN, SADA, SHOGHI,
KUFRI,GHANAHATTI,
DISTRICT SHIMLA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR.
VINOD THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 AND
MR. ANIL CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3)
CWPOA 4921 OF 2020
Between:
RAJEEV SHARMA SON OF SHRI B.N. SHARMA,
RESIDENT OF DURGA BARI, LOWER KAITHU,
SHIMLA171003, PRESENTLY POSTED AS
ACCOUNTANT,SADA, KUFRI, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY MR. B.S. ATTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2022 20:06:30 :::CIS
3
SECRETARY (TCP) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA171002.
2. DIRECTOR, TOWN &
.
COUNTRY PLANNING,
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA171002.
3. DEPUTY
COMMISSIONERCUM
CHAIRMAN, SADA, SHOGHI,
KUFRI,GHANAHATTI,
DISTRICT SHIMLA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR.
VINOD THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 AND
MR. ANIL CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3)
CWPOA NO. 4929 OF 2020
Between
ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH,
RESIDENT OF B43, SECTORII, NEW SHIMLA
(51)171009, PRESENTLY POSTED AS SANITARY
INSPECTOR, SADA, KUFRI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT
SHIMLA, H.P.
..PETITIONER
(BY MR. B.S. ATTRI, ADVOCATE)
::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2022 20:06:30 :::CIS
4
AND
1. STATE OF H.P.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (TCP) TO THE
.
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA171002.
2. DIRECTOR, TOWN &
COUNTRY PLANNING,
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA171002.
3. DEPUTY
COMMISSIONERCUM
CHAIRMAN, SADA, SHOGHI,
KUFRI,GHANAHATTI,
DISTRICT SHIMLA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. VINOD THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 AND MR. ANIL
CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
CWPOA NO. 4923 OF 2020
ARUN KUMAR SON OF SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH,
RESIDENT OF B43, SECTORII NEW SHIMLA (51)
171009, PRESENTLY POSTED AS SANITARY
INSPECTOR, SADA, SHOGHI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT
SHIMLA, H.P.
(BY MR. B.S. ATTRI, ADVOCATE)
::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2022 20:06:30 :::CIS
5
AND
1. STATE OF H.P.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (TCP) TO THE
.
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA171002.
2. DIRECTOR, TOWN &
COUNTRY PLANNING,
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA171002.
3. DEPUTY
COMMISSIONERCUM
CHAIRMAN, SADA, SHOGHI,
KUFRI,GHANAHATTI,
DISTRICT SHIMLA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. VINOD THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 AND MR. ANIL
CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
Reserved on : 27.4.2022
These petitions coming on for hearing this day, this
Court passed the following:
ORDER
Since common questions of law and facts arise for
consideration and even the relief claimed in all the petitions is same,
therefore all these petitions were heard together and are being
disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioners were working in various capacities with
.
Special Area Development Authority, Shoghi, Kufri, Ghanahatti,
District Shimla. Vide office order dated 29.12.2009, the pay scales of
the petitioners were revised to Rs. 10300-34800+Rs. 3600 Grade Pay
from pre-existing scale of Rs. 5480-8925.
3. The Government vide its letter dated 28.6.2014 decided
to regularize the services of the contractual employees, who had
completed six years of service as on 31.3.2014. In terms of the
aforesaid communication, the petitioners were eligible for
regularization and had completed the requisite six years of continuous
service, but their services were not regularized.
4. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, Principal Secretary (TCP)
to the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a letter dated
19.5.2015 regarding creation of posts in various SADAs in Himachal
Pradesh for regularization of daily/contract employees, who have
completed 7 years of continuous service with 240 days per calender
year as on 31.3.2014, as per the policy of the government dated
28.6.2014.
5. Later, vide office memo dated 25.8.2015 issued by
respondent No. 3, i.e. Deputy Commisisoner-cum-Chairman, SADA,
Shoghi, Kufri, Ghanahatti, the services of the petitioners were
.
regularized with immediate effect, but on a reduced scale of Rs. 5910-
20200+1950 Grade Pay, whereas they had already been placed in the
pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+Rs. 3600 Grade Pay, when they had
been working on contract basis.
6. However, notably the similarly situated employees i.e.
Sanitary Inspector, whose services had been regularized in the
Municipal Corporation, Shimla, Urban Development Department and
BBNDA, Solan, were granted pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3600
Grade Pay.
7. Even the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, SADA
was of the view that the petitioners had been discriminated and
therefore he issued letter dated 29.8.2016 to the Additional Chief
Secretary (TCP), wherein he strongly recommended the pay scale of
Rs. 10300-34800+3600 Grade Pay to the petitioners.
8. However, vide letter dated 14.8.2017 issued by the
Additional Chief Secretary (TCP) to the Government of H.P. , the
aforesaid pay scale was granted, but the same was granted w.e.f.
24.8.2017 and not from the date of their regularization. It was further
provided that financial implications of the pay scale would be borne
by the concerned SADA from their own resources. This constrained
.
the petitioners to file a representation, however, the same was rejected
by the government, vide letter dated 30.7.2018, constraining the
petitioners to file the instant petitions for grant of following
substantive relief(s):
"i) That the impugned order dated 30.07.018 (Annexure A-8/A-
7), whereby the applicant has been denied the pay scale of Rs.
10300-34800+3600/- Grade Pay from the date of regularization
of his service i.e. w.e.f. 25.8.2015 till 23.8.2017, may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
ii)That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the pay
scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3600 Grade pay to the applicant from
the date of regularization of his service i.e. w.e.f. 25.8.2015 till
23.8.2017 alongwith upto date interest."
9. Even though, SADA, which has been arrayed as
respondent No. 3, has filed separate reply, but the same need not be
referred to as the grant of pay scale, sought by the petitioners, were
admittedly in the sole and exclusive domain of the government.
10. As regards, the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1
and 2, it would be noticed that apart from certain preliminary
objections, the only ground on which the claim of the petitioners has
been rejected is that vide rejection letter dated 30.7.2018 (Annexure
A-8), there was no scope for grant of enhanced pay scale to the
petitioners who had been working as Accountant and Sanitary
.
Inspectors in SADA, Shoghi, Kufri and Ghanahatti in various SADAs
from the date of their regularization, as is being claimed. It is claimed
that vide letter dated 14.8.2017, pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3600
Grade Pay has been allowed/granted to the post of Sanitary Inspector
in SADAs with immediate effect.
11. Furthermore, it was clearly
r envisaged in letter dated
19.5.2015, whereby various posts were created that;
I) All the financial implications to be accrued in this regard would
be met from the SADA funds only without hampering the pace of
Development activities.
II) No additional funds would be demanded on this account.
III) Neither HP Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 nor HP
Civil Services (categorywise/postwise revised pay) Rules, 2012 are
applicable to the employees of SADA.
Therefore, it was not feasible to grant the revised pay scales
retrospectively, as has been claimed by the petitioners.
12. Obviously, the defense taken by the respondents is not at
all sustainable, as it leads nowhere, rather it smacks of arrogance and
closed mindedness.
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were already
drawing higher pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3600 Grade Pay prior
to their services being taken over on contract basis.
.
14. That apart, the funds of the revised pay scale were to be
paid out of the funds of SADAs and not by respondents No. 1 and 2
and it is not the case of the SADA that it lacked funds and therefrom
could not pay revised pay scale from the date of their services being
taken over i.e. w.e.f. 25.8.2015 till 23.8.2017.
15. What is still worse is the manner in which respondents
have rejected the claim of the petitioners vide letter dated 30.7.2018
(Annexure A-8), which reads as under:
"Government of Himachal Pradesh
Department of Town & Country Planning
Subject: Regarding pay scale for the post of Sanitary Inspector and
Accountant in SADA Kufri, Shoghi and Ghanahatti.
Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister, H.P. may please
refer to his U.O. No. Secy/CM/T0504/2017-DEP-C-47198 dated
5.6.2018 on the subject cited above.
In this regard,it is informed that on regularization of
services of one Accountant and Three Sanitary Inspectors who
were working on contract basis in SADA Shoghi, Kufri and
Ghanahatti, following payscales were granted:
Sl. No. Name of the post Payscale granted at Date since when Pay scale Date since when
the time of the pay scale granted on the the pay scale
regularization with granted request of the granted
the prior approval incumbents with
of the Cabinet the prior
approval of
.
cabinet
1. Accountant Rs.5910-20200+ 25.8.2015 Rs. 10300- 24.8.2017
1950/- GP 34800+Rs.
3800/- GP
2. Sanitary Inspector Rs.5910-20200+ 25.8.2015 Rs. 10300- 24.8.2017
1950/- GP 34800+Rs.
3600/- GP
Now the incumbents of the above two posts are demaining
that the pay scale which has been granted to them w.e.f. 24.8.2017,
be granted from the date of their regularization i.e. w.e.f. 25.8.2015.
It is relevant to mention here that while according approval
for grant of enhanced payscale by this deptt. Vide letter of even
number dated 14.8.2017, it was clearly mentioned in the approval,
that these payscales would be applicable with immediate effect.
Hence, there is no scope for grant of enhanced payscale to the
Accountant and Sanitary Inspectors in SADA, Shoghi, Kufri and
Ghanahatti from the date of their regularization, as is being claimed
by them.
It is, therefore, requested to apprise the Hon'ble Chief
Minister, H.P. accordingly.
(Virender Sharma)
Joint Secretary (TCP) to the
Government of H.P.
Deputy Secretary to the
Chief Minister, H.P."
16. It is evident from the perusal of the aforesaid letter that
no reason whatsoever has been given for rejecting the claim of the
petitioners and it is simply stated that "it was clearly mentioned in the
approval that these payscales would be applicable with immediate
effect. Hence, there is no scope for grant of enhanced payscale to the
.
Accountant and Sanitary Inspectors in SADA, Shoghi, Kufri and
Ghanahatti,from the date of their regularization, as is being claimed by
them."
17. By now, it is well settled legal proposition that not only
the judicial authorities,but the administrative authorities' orders must
be supported by reasons recorded in it. The rejection order is bereft of
any reason and therefore, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
18. Apart from above, it would be noticed that it is only qua
the employees of the SADA that the respondents have drawn different
yardsticks, whereas counterparts of the petitioners, whose services
have been regularized in the Municipal Corporation, Urban
Development department and BBNDA, have been granted the pay
scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3600 Grade Pay from the date of their
regularization.
19. A Division Bench of this Court in "Dr. Y.S. Parmar
University of Horticulture and Forestry,Nauni versus Satish
Chand" and connected matters, Latest Himachal Law Judgments, Vol.
43 2017(1), 184 has clearly held that equal pay for equal work is no
more slogan, but the fundamental right, which can be enforced
through constitutional remedies.
.
20. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioners herein were
discharging/performing the similar duties and shouldering the similar
responsibilities, as the duties being discharged by their counterparts in
Municipal Corporation, Shimla, Urban Development department and
BBNDA, Solan and in fact had been drawing the pay scales of Rs.
10300-34800+3600 Grade Pay when they have been regularized,
therefore, the petitioners could not have been discriminated qua the
pay scales when their services were taken over and regularized.
21. That apart, the respondents ought to have given some
justification or reason as to why the claim of the petitioners cannot be
acceded to. Merely stating that there is no scope for grant of enhanced
pay scale to the petitioners clearly falls short of the requirement of
law, in relation to disclosure.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons
stated above, I find merit in these petitions and the same are
accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 30.7.2018 (Annexure A-
8/Annexure A-7), whereby the petitioners have been denied the pay
scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3600 Grade Pay from the date of
regularization of their services i.e. w.e.f. 25.8.2015 till 23.8.2017, is
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the
.
aforesaid pay scale alongwith grade pay to the petitioners from the
date of regularization of their services,within a period of three months
from today, else they shall be liable to pay 9% interest on the delayed
payments till the entire amount is paid. The pending application(s), if
any, are also disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
MAY 4, 2022
Kalpana
