Dalip Singh vs State of Punjab

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioners pray for grant of revised pay scales as per the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1986. The recommendations were made applicable to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1994 and their solitary grievance is that the same should have been made available to them with effect from 1.1.1986 at par with the employees of the financial institutions under the Cooperative Societies Act. The question that the employees of the Cooperative Bank are getting this pay scale with effect from 1986 is evident from Annexure P-1 appended to the petition.

The reply filed by the MILKFED would reveal that the benefit of Third Pay Commission has been made admissible to the petitioners, but from a later date i.e. 1.1.1994 instead of 1.1.986 and the ground pleaded for adopting such a date is a financial stringency.

It is not entirely the case of the respondents that they being a society, having their own rules and instructions, would not be amenable to the notification and decisions taken by the State Government or the other cooperative institutions.

If that had been the case of the respondents, then there would have been some justification in accepting their plea and denying the benefit to the petitioners of the Third Pay Commission, to the petitioners from an early date but once the respondents make a benefit available and grant parity to their employees in terms of pay structure as admissible to the government employees on the basis of the recommendations of a pay commission, then merely because there is financial stringency, would not be a just plea to deny the claim of the petitioners.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar, has observed as follows:-

Financial stringency may not be a ground for not issuing requisite directions when a question of violation of fundamental right arises. This Court has been highlighting this aspect in the matters concerning fundamental rights and maintenance of ecology. (See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Vardichan and Others, and Dr. B.L. Wadehra Vs. Union of India and others, . In All India Imam Organization and others Vs. Union of India and others, this Court held:

...Much was argued on behalf of the Union and the Wakf Boards that their financial position was not such that they can meet the obligations of paying the Imams as they are being paid in the State of Punjab. It was also urged that the number of mosques is so large that it would entail heavy expenditure which the Boards of different State would not be able to bear. We do not find any correlation between the two. Financial difficulties of the institution cannot be above fundamental right of a citizen. If the Boards have been entrusted with the responsibility of supervising and administering the Wakf then it is their duty to harness resources to pay those persons who perform the most important duty namely of leading community prayer in a mosque the very purpose for which it is created.

In State of H.P. Vs. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees and Others, , it was opined:

The constitutional mandate to the State, as upheld by this Court in Unni Krishnan case - to provide free education to the children up to the age of fourteen - cannot be permitted to be circumvented on the ground of lack of economic capacity or financial incapacity.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the respondents have unjustifiably withheld this benefit from the petitioners with effect from 1986. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to the revised pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1994, as has been granted by the respondents.