AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biren Vaishnav, J
By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the post of Public Relations Officer, ESIS, Class-III held by the petitioner be upgraded to the post of Class-II with the corresponding pay-scale of Class-II post with effect from 01.01.1973 or from 22.021978 or from 03.07.1973. In the alternative, the prayer is that the respondent grant promotion to the post of Public Relations Officer, Class-III as per notification dated 05.05.1987 on completion of 7 years as PRO, Class-III.
The petitioner was appointed as a Public Relations Officer, Class-III on 11.07.1969 in the pay-scale of Rs.215-340. He is possessing Bachelor of Social Science, M.A from School of Social Science, Certificate course of Social Works, Certificate course of Journalism and Public Relations etc. He has been associated with several activities while discharging duties as Public Relations Officer, Class-III. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16.09.1976, the Chatterjee Committee of Health Administration made certain recommendations for the post of Public Relations Officer, Class-III which included the recommendation of upgrading the post of Public Relations Officer, Class-III to Class-II.
2.1 On 16.09.1976, the Directorate of Medical Services, ESI Scheme addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Government recommending that the post of Public Relations Officer, Class-III be upgraded inasmuch as a Public Relations Officer has to have knowledge of public education. The empowered committee in its meeting held on 22.04.1977 accepted the recommendations of the Chatterjee Committee including that of upgrading the post of Public Relations Officer, Class-III to Class-II.
2.2 The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 01.02.1978 requesting the Director of ESIC to upgrade the post of Public Relations Officer, Class-III to Class-II. Based on his representation, the Director of Medical Services sent a recommendation to the Health and Family Welfare Department to upgrade the post to that of Public Relations Officer, Class-II. The State Government on 11.07.1978 informed the Director General, ESI Scheme that apropos the proposal, the State Finance Department has agreed to the same. Another representation was made by the petitioner on 03.08.1989. A specific positive recommendation was again made by the Director on 07.08.1989 recommending the case of the petitioner inter alia stating that the post be upgraded. Even the Central Government granted permission for such upgradation by a communication dated 03.07.1992. It is the case of the petitioner that he who sits in the interview committee for interview of social workers draws a pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500 whereas the pay-scale of the petitioner was Rs.1400-2900.
2.3 The petitioner approached this Court in the year 1997 by filing Special Civil Application No. 4767 of 1997. The Court by an order dated 30.04.1999 disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to make a representation to the State and observed that whenever a pay anomaly committee is constituted, the Government of Gujarat will look into it. A detailed representation was made by the petitioner to the Anomaly Committee on 31.05.1999. The petitioner was called for a hearing on 18.06.1999. He tendered written submissions on 08.07.1999. The Anomaly Committee submitted its recommendations on 15.05.2000. On 11.01.2001, the sub-committee under the Chairmanship of Minister of Finance resolved to look into the grievances, however, on asking for the recommendations and the minutes of the meeting, what was apparent from the same was that the Anomaly Committee recommended that the petitioner’s post be granted the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 and the Public Relations Officers of Civil Hospital who was getting pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 be downgraded to Rs.5500-9000 to bring it in line with that of the petitioner. This effect was to be given from 01.01.1996. It appears that the Ministry did not accept this recommendation which copies were furnished to the petitioner on 03.10.2012 together with the minutes of the meeting. The Committee set out seven to eight reasons as to why the recommendations of the committee were not accepted. It is based on the refusal of these recommendations, by virtue of resolution dated 23.11.2011 and the RTI communication dated 03.12.2012, that the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition.
Mr. Dipan Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the State Government has framed recruitment rules on 05.05.1987 for the post of Public Relations Officer (Directorate of Medical Education and Research) Recruitment Rules, 1987. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection, the incumbent has to possess a Bachelors Degree in any faculty for Class-III post. In order to be eligible for promotion to Class-II, the incumbent has to put in seven years of service. It is in this context that the petitioner has prayed that on completion of seven years in the year 1976, if the post is not re-designated or upgraded at least the petitioner should have been promoted.
3.1 Mr. Desai drawing the attention of the court to the representation made to the Anomaly Committee and also to the respondents would indicate that it is the stand of the petitioner that at least in three hospitals namely M.P. Shah Hospital, the Civil Hospital and in the Department of Directorate of Food and Nutrition, the post of Public Relations Officer is getting a pay-scale of Rs.8000-10500 of a class-II post whereas the petitioner is getting a pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 performing the same nature of duties. He would assail the reasonings of the State Government as being arbitrary.
3.2 Mr. Desai would draw the attention of the court to the representation made by the petitioner which would indicate that the petitioner has to undertake an onerous task as a Public Relations Officer inasmuch as he has to deal with the workers’ class and keeping in view the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’, the petitioner is entitled to a scale equal to those Public Relations Officers in other department. Even social workers whom the petitioner interviews get a higher pay-scale. He would therefore submit that looking to the nature of work, educational qualification and source and manner of appointment, particularly, when the recruitment rules of 07.01.1969 are compared to rules of 05.05.1987 the petitioner is entitled to be given the benefit of equal pay for equal work.
Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP would submit that valid and cogent reasons have been given by the State for rejecting the case of the petitioner for the benefit of equal pay such as (a) merely because the designation of the Central and State posts are same there need not be a pay parity; (b) even looking to the past what has been found that historically the pay-scales have been different; (c) pay revisions have been carried out in 1991 and the fact that the Committees have not found any reason to change the pay-scale, no fault can be found with the existing pay-scale of the petitioner; (d) once the pay-scales have been fixed by the pay commission keeping in view the vertical and horizontal relativity, the Anomaly Committee cannot refix the scales. He submitted that the pay-scales cannot be equal only on the basis of educational qualifications or nature of work. He therefore would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to the prayers made in the petition.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on overall comparison of the recruitment rules framed on 07.01.1969 for the post of Public Relations Officer, ESI Scheme, it is evident that in order to be eligible to be appointed as PRO one must possess a Degree in Graduation from a University with Diploma in Social Welfare and Labour Laws or a Diploma or a Degree obtained from TATA Institute of Social Sciences. In comparison to this, reading the rules of 05.05.1987, for recruitment to the Medical Education and Research Department, what an incumbent requires for direct selection to a Class-II post which is a higher post is only a qualification of graduation and not an additional qualification of a Diploma as is the case for the post on which the petitioner is working.
5.1 Evidently, on 16.09.1976, on a recommendation made by the Chatterjee Committee of Health Administration, the Director of Health and Medical Services, ESI Scheme, accepted the recommendation. The letter clearly stated that “… it is our experience that the Public Relations Officers have to be trained about hospital administration and how to educate the public on the work and the problems faced by the hospital administration…. Therefore, such an officer has to be Class-II Gazetted Officer.”
5.2 On 22.02.1978, the Director General of Medical Services wrote to the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department stating that two posts of Public Relations Officers have been sanctioned for the ESI Scheme. Drawing the attention of the government to the recruitment rules, it was recommended that the pay-scale of Rs.425-700 for the post of Public Relations Officer was inadequate. A request was therefore made that the government upgrade one post of Public Relations Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.640-1040. The financial implication of the proposal would be only Rs.30,000/- per annum which is negligible. Pursuant to this, on 11.07.1978, the Health and Family Welfare Department wrote to the Director General as under:
“The State Government has therefore decided to upgrade the post of Public Relations Officer from Class-III to Class-II. It is therefore requested that approval of the Commission may be communicated for the proposal to upgrade the post of Public Relations Officer. The State Finance Department has also agreed to the proposal.”
5.3 Even on 07.08.1989, the Director of Medical Services reiterated his request clearly stating that a parallel post of Public Relations Officer at Civil Hospital and other government offices are of Class-II cadre. By drawing the attention of the department to the recruitment rules of the Medical Department showing that the petitioner fulfills qualifications for a higher post the Director further opined that if the post is converted to Class-II, the pay would be Rs.1048 i.e. hardly Rs.200/- more. Detailed representation to the Anomaly Committee pursuant to the directions of this court on 30.04.1999 indicate that the petitioner had made out a request for a pay-scale at par with those Public Relations Officers in the other departments to which proposal, in principle the department agreed, to grant a pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 and reducing the pay of the Civil Hospital and like incumbents from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.5500-9000.
Based on these circumstances what is evident is that time and again positive recommendations for upgrading the post of the Public Relations Officer, Class-III to Class-II have been made by the department which have found favour with them which also is evident from the communication of 11.07.1978 of the State Government itself despite which till the petitioner retired on superannuation the grievance was not redressed.
Normally, this court would not delve into the arena of executive functions of re-designating or reformulating a pay-scale, but in the facts on hand, when the anomaly in pay is evident inasmuch as the petitioner was drawing a pay-scale lower than that of a social worker whom he would select the irony of arbitrariness and discrimination would stand out. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore rightly placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Punjab and Other vs. Jagjit Singh and Others [(2017) 1 SCC 148], wherein the Apex Court in para 58 has observed as under:
“58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for drawing the benefits as if the petitioner was working in the upgraded post of Public Relations Officer, Class-II from the date on which the State Government constituted a sub-committee under the Chairmanship of the Finance Minister to look into the recommendation of the Anomaly Committee. The petitioner shall be treated to have been posted to the post of Public Relations Officer, Class- II with effect from 11.01.2001. His pay-scale shall be refixed in the cadre of the Public Relations Officer, Class-II on and from 11.01.2001 together with consequential pay revisions. For the period from 11.01.2001 till the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 06.11.2012, the petitioner shall be granted notional benefits of the pay-scale of Public Relations Officer, Class-II. From 06.11.2012 till the date of his superannuation, the petitioner shall be entitled to actual benefits of the pay-scale of Public Relations Officer, Class-II together with arrears from 16.11.2012 till the date of his retirement on superannuation. Pensionary benefits shall be recalculated on the aforesaid basis and revised accordingly. Payments as aforesaid shall be made to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Rule is made absolute.