Raj Pal Verma and Others vs Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and Others

N.K. Sud, J.—The petitioners joined the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, (for short ''the University'') as Steno Typists on 17.6.1975, 2-5-1973 and 9.3.1971 respectively. Thereafter there were appointed as Junior Scale Stenographers on 1.12.1979, 4.10.1977 and 22.1.1979 respectively. They were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 160-140 + Rs. 30/- as special pay. The pay scales were revised vide Annexures P-4 and P-5 dated 11.1.1980 and 24.11.1981 respectively. In the revised pay scales, the petitioners were placed in a scale lower than the scale given to the Accountants. Since the petitioners had been earlier ordered to be treated at par with the Accountants, they made a representation to the University seeking parity in pay scale with those given to the Accountants. The University accepted this representation as a personal measure vide notification dated 8.2.1993 (Annexure P-10) and granted them the same pay scales as given to the Accountants. However, it declined to grant the arrears to the petitioners. It is at this stage that the present writ petition was filed by the petitioners claiming arrears on account of difference in pay-scale.

In the writ petition it had been categorically averred that the posts of Accountants and Junior Scale Stenographers were equated by the Board of Management vide decision taken in its 41st meeting held on 13.3.1968. Thus according to the petitioners on revision of pay scales they could not be placed in a scale lower than that given to the Accountants.

In the written statement a preliminary objection was raised wherein in had been alleged that the petitioners were never equated with the Accountants. However, in the replication to this written statement, the petitioners have placed on record as Annexure P.12, the record of the proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Management held on 13.3.1968. As per this Annexure under agenda item No. 5, it has been clearly mentioned that in order to remove some anomalies it was recommended that the posts of Accountants and Junior Scale Stenographers may be equated and they may be given a scale of Rs. 166.8.182/12-350. This Annexure farther shows that the Finance Committee in its 33rd meeting held on 13.3.1968 had recommended this proposal to the Board of Management for approval. The decision of the Board was as under:-

"The recommendation of the Finance Committee was accepted."

In pursuance of this decision a notification dated 17/18th April 1968 was issued whereby the Accountants and the Junior Scale Stenographers were placed in the same revised pay- scale. A copy of this notification has also been placed on record. Confronted with this factual position, the learned counsel for the respondent was not able to justify the preliminary objection raised in the written statement.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going-through the records.'''' stands proved that the posts of Accountants and of Junior Scale Stenographs equated in 1968 and therefore, their pay-scales could not be varied during revision of pay-scales. Once the two posts had been equated, the persons holding these posts had to be given the same pay scale. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to place any material on record or cite any authority to show that even after equating the two posts, different pay-scales could be granted to them. In fact this claim stands accepted by the University as per notification dated 8,2.1993. However, this has been done only prospectively. Why? There is no explanation. Once the claim of the petitioners about parity of pay scales with the Accountants has been found to be in order, they would be entitled to all the consequential benefits from the date from which these would have accrued had parity in pay scales been maintained.

The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground of delay. According to him, the pay-scales were revised vide Annexures P-4 and P-5 dated 11.1.1980 and 24.11.1981 respectively whereas the present writ petition had been filed in 1993. After having accepted the revised pay-sec !e the petitioners could not challenge the same after a delay of 12 years. This argument is without any merit. It is borne out from the record that after the aforesaid notifications, the petitioners had made a representation to the University which was partially accepted vide Annexure P-10 dated 8.2.1993. The claim of the petitioners seeking equal pay-scale with that of the Accountants was accepted. However, their prayer for the arrears was declined. It is at this stage that the cause of action had arisen to the petitioners leading to the filing of this writ petition in November 1993. Thus, there is no inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to the arrears of pay due to them by treating them at par with the Accountants so far as the pay-scales are concerned, The respondents are directed to compute the relief due to the petitioners and make the payment expeditiously. Necessary exercise be completed within six months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Counsel for the petitioners points out that a direction may also be issued to the petitioners asking them for their options under the revised pay-scale. According to me, no such direction need be issued. If such is the requirement of the rules, University would be expected to keep that in view while computing the relief due to the petitioners.

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.