Satish Chandar and Another vs The State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—By this writ petition, two Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) in the service of the Himachal Pradesh Government pray for an order entitling them to the revised pay scale granted by the Government to Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Executive) and Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Accountants).

One Petitioner was appointed Assistant Sub-Inspector (Wireless) on April 14, 1956, and the other on January 8, 1961.

The Police organisation in Himachal Pradesh is patterned on the same lines as that of Punjab. A pay Commission was appointed for revising the pay scales of the Punjab Police Force, and pursuant to the recommendations of that Commission the Punjab Government, by an order dated January 30, 1963, sanctioned an increase in the pay scales of different categories. Assistant Sub-Inspectors were held entitled to a pay scale of Rs. 160-5-200 inclusive of dearness allowance and temporary allowance. It is not disputed that at the relevant time this category included not only Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Executive) and Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Accountants) but also Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless). The Union Territories (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1959, contained a provision empowering the Himachal Pradesh Administration to revise pay scales from time to time so as to bring them at par with those obtaining in Punjab. The provision was included in the rules with effect from July 1, 1963. Accordingly, the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh made an order, apparently in the year 1963, sanctioning similar increases in the pay scales of corresponding categories of officers in the Himachal Pradesh police. The pay scale of Constables was raised to Rs. 125-125/128-1/150, that of Head Constables was raised to Rs. 150-3-165/180 and that of Assistant Sub-Inspectors was increased to Rs. 160-5-200, all the pay scales being inclusive of dearness allowance and temporary allowance. This increase was effected from October 1, 1962. Effect was given to the order of the Lieutenant Governor by the Himachal Pradesh Administration, but it construed the order to mean that an increase was made only in the pay scales of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Executive) and Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Accountants), but not of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless). It appears that subsequently in 1970 the Himachal Pradesh Administration decided to give the benefit of the increased pay scales to Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) with effect from February 1, 1968. The Petitioner represented to the Himachal Pradesh Government that the benefit of the revised pay scales should be extended back to October 1, 1962, so that they could be brought at par with the remaining categories of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in the Himachal Pradesh Police Force. The representations remained pending with the Government, and the Petitioners were told that they were under consideration. But, in fact, it was only during the pendency of the present writ petition that the representations were disposed of and the Petitioners were informed that they had been rejected.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that on a proper application of the order of the Lieutenant Governor the Petitioners were properly entitled to the benefit of the revised pay scales with effect from October 1, 1962, and there was no good reason for distinguishing them from Assistant Sub-Inspectors of other categories. In my opinion, the contention is well founded. The order by the Lieutenant Governor was made under Rule 2 of the Union Territories (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1959. It is clear that the intention of the order was to bring at par pay scales in the Himachal Pradesh Police Force with those obtaining in Punjab. By the order the Lieutenant Governor revised the pay scales of officers in the category of Assistant Sub-Inspectors. It is not disputed that that category in the Punjab Police included Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) and that, therefore, when the pay scales were revised in Punjab, the revised pay scales granted in favour of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in Punjab must be considered to cover Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wirelsss) also in that State. It cannot also be disputed that Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) in Himachal Pradesh form part of the Himachal Police Force even as do Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Executive) and Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Accountants). Consequently, it would be logical to hold that the revised pay scales sanctioned by the Lieutenant Governor in favour of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in Himachal Pradesh should extend to Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) also.

The case of the Respondents is that Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) in Himachal Pradesh carried a pay scale sanctioned by the Central Government and they were not entitled to the benefit of pay scales running parallel to those obtaining in Punjab. The submission is without merit. The determining factor is the order made by the Lieutenant Governor. Whatever the scale of pay of the police officer before, if he fell within a category mentioned in the Lieutenant Governor''s order he would be entitled to its benefit. It is the area covered by the categories which matters. The Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) in Punjab were given the benefit of the revised pay scales by the Punjab Government. There is no reason why that class of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in Himachal Pradesh should also not be given corresponding benefit. It seems clear that when the Lieutenant Governor''s order spoke of Assistant Sub-Inspectors it referred not only to Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Executive) and Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Accountants) but also to Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless). To hold otherwise would be to create an invidious discrimination between Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless), and Assistant Sub-Inspectors of other kinds. There is no justification for the discrimination. An attempt has been made by the Respondents to show that the duties of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Executive) are more arduous than those of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) inasmuch as the former have to pursue dacoits and thieves and their duties are therefore more dangerous. The distinction attempted is frivolous. It cannot be supposed that Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) do not also expose themselves to danger.

It is urged on behalf of the Respondents that the enhancement of salary with retrospective effect is a matter falling within the discretion of the Government, that it is an administrative matter entirely, and no possible right accrues to a Government servant to have his salary enhanced retrospectively. It is said that the matter falls within the domain of concessional indulgence. The argument is without substance. The claim made by the Petitioners is founded in a right conferred on them by the Lieutenant Governor''s order. There is no question of any concessional indulgence being claimed by the Petitioners.

It is also urged on behalf of the Respondents that the writ petition is belated and that the claim made by the Petitioners pertains to a period as long back as 1962 to 1968. Now, it appears from the return filed by the Respondents that the representations made by the Petitioners have remained under the consideration of the Government even after the writ petition was filed and it is also averred in the return that the writ petition is premature. Having regard to the conduct of the Government and the position taken in the return, the Petitioners cannot be denied relief on the ground of laches.

The writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant to the Petitioners with effect from October 1, 1962, the benefit of the revised pay scales declared by the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh in 1963. The Petitioners are entitled to their costs, which I assess at Rs. 100 in favour of each Petitioner.