Jugal Kishore vs State of Haryana and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays quashing of order dated 6.2.2008 (P-8), passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs. 3050-4350 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 along with payment of arrears of pay scale as well as consequential benefits of pension etc. in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of v. Sreedharan Nair v. State of Haryanal (C.W.P. No. 1701 of 2000, decided on 21.8.2001), which was subsequently followed in the case of Prem Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (C.W.P. No. 14792 of 2002, decided on 17.10.2003, Annexure P-l).

The factual position in the present case is not in dispute therefore, we do not feel the necessity to discuss the same in detail. The controversy in the instant petition relates to grant of equal pay scale to the Book-Binders of the Kurukshetra University, Kuruk-shetra (for brevity, ''the University'') which was being given to the Book-Binders working the Haryana Government Press. Prior to 1.1.1986 the Book-Binders of Haryana Government Press were in the same pay scale of Rs. 400-600 which the Book-Binders of the University were drawing. The Government of Haryana revised the pay scale of Book-Binders of Haryana Government Press from Rs. 400-600 to Rs. 950-1400, vide notification dated 19.10.1987 while amending the Haryana Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987. Later on, the Book-Binders of the University raised their grievance and represented that their duties and responsibilities are identical to the duties rendered by the Book-Binders working in the Haryana Government Press, therefore, they may also be given the revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Though the said claim was accepted by the University in principle but the same was not granted for want of approval from the State Government. Thereafter, the controversy traveled to this Court when one of the Book-Binder working in the University, namely, v. Sreedharan Nair filed C.W.P. No. 1701 of 2000 (supra).

The Division Bench after considering the matter at length and discussing judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia AIR 1989 S.C. 19 and Mew Ram Kanojia Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others, allowed C.W.P. No. 1701 of 2000 (supra) by holding as under:

On the basis of the decisions referred to above by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the first question to be determined is whether there is any difference in the duties or functions of the posts referred to above or whether there is any difference in quality of work discharged by the incumbents of the respective posts. So far as the averments made in the written statement are concerned, there is not even a whisper to indicate that the duties and responsibilities of the Binders employed in the University Press are different from the duties and responsibilities of Binders engaged in the Haryana Government Press.

In Mewa Ram Kajojia''s case (supra), the Supreme Court additionally held that employees could be classified on the basis of the qualifications so as to be denied equality in matters relating to pay scales. Insofar as the instant controversy is concerned, it is not the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the qualifications for appointment to the post of Binders in the University Press is different from the qualifications stipulated for binders in the Haryana Government Press. It is, therefore, evident that there is no justification, whatsoever, to deprive the petitioner the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 with effect from 1.1.1986, i.e. at par with the pay scales the Binders engaged in the Haryana Government Press under the principle of ''Equal Pay for Equal Work.

In view of the facts and legal position analysed above, the instant petition is allowed. Respondents Nos. l and 2 are directed to grant sanction/approval for the release of pay in the scale of Rs. 950-1400 to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986.

Subsequently other Book-Binders also filed C.W.P. No. 14792 of 2002 (supra) which was also allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2003 (P-l). It seems that the University has granted the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 only to those persons who have approached this Court and orders were passed in their favour despite the fact that this Court has decided the controversy in the case of v. Sreedharan Nair (supra).

In so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he was appointed as a Binder in the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra on 1.11.1965 and retried on 31.8.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation after completing qualifying service of 31 years and 10 months. The University has not granted the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to the petitioner, which has been admittedly granted to the similarly situated Book-Binders. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 14.5.2007 (P-5) and thereafter filed C.W.P. No. 11630 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the legal notice in accordance with law within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy (P-6). The claim of the """ petitioner has been rejected merely on the ground that he has sent the legal notice after a huge delay in the year 2007 whereas he was actually retired on 31.8.1998 from the post of Book-Binder, thus, the benefit of decision of this Court is not admissible to him and he is not entitled for the revision of pay scales and consequential benefits (P-8).

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with Their able assistance, we find that this petition deserves to succeed. We see no force in the contention raised on behalf of learned Counsel for the respondents that the benefit of higher pay scales of Rs. 950-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs. 3050-4350 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 could not be given to the petitioner merely on the ground that he has sent the legal notice in the year 2007 after his retirement. It has come on record that similarly situated Book-Binders have already been granted the aforementioned benefit. Moreover, it was incumbent upon the respondent University to grant the said benefit not only to the petitioner but to all such employees once this Court has decided the issue in the case of v. Sreedharan Nair (supra), which has admittedly attained finality. This Court has already held in a number of cases that it is not necessary for every affected person to approach the Court seeking an order in his/her favour once the matter has already been settled by the Court. The benefit of judicial pronouncements after the same attains finality is required to be given automatically to all such persons whose cases are covered by such decision. We, thus, strongly disapprove the stand taken by the respondents and find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of v. Sreedharan Nair (supra).

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.2.2008 (P-8) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4350 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. However, he would become entitled to re-fixation as he retired on 31.8.1998. The respondents shall refix his pay in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and then in the revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4350 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. On that basis, the respondents shall also calculate his enhanced pension and other retrial benefits. The petitioner shall become entitled to enhanced pension and other retrial benefits but the arrears are confined to three years preceding the date of filing the petition, which was filed on 12.3.2008. The need fill shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Sd/- Jora Singh, J.