Shiv Kumar and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10397 of 2011 (Shiv Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others), 24329 of 2011 (Bhuvninder Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others), 9549 of 2012 (Ramesh and others v. State of Haryana and others), 10641 of 2012 (Sunil and others v. State of Haryana and others), 14140 of 2012 (Dharambir Singh v. State of Haryana and others), 16992 of 2012 (Pawan Saini and others v. State of Haryana and others), 19390 of 2012 (Harvinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others), 19397 of 2012 (Parjeet Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others), 1573 of 2013 (Krishan Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others), 2774 of 2013 (Bhoop Singh v. State of Haryana and others) and 3500 of 2013 (Rishi Raj and others v. State of Haryana and others) as identical issue has been raised in all the writ petitions. The petitioners are working as Canal Guards in the Irrigation Department, State of Haryana. They have approached this Court praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to correct an anomalous situation which, as per them, has arisen by classifying them to be holders of a Group ''D'' post. The petitioners claim that they are vested with the right to be designated as members of Group ''C (Class III) service and to be accordingly granted the requisite benefits in the nature of pay scale etc. Directions have also been sought to the respondents to issue guidelines so as to assign them duties commensurate to their educational qualifications. Still further, a prayer has been made for directing the respondents to create promotional avenues by bringing them in an appropriate cadre. Challenge has also been laid to a directive issued by the respondents whereby the petitioners while holding the post of Canal Guards have been called upon to discharge the duties of Beldars i.e. a Class IV (Group D) post.

The case set up on behalf of the petitioners is that they were recruited to the post of Canal Guards in the year 2009 after having subjected to a process of selection initiated in terms of issuance of an advertisement dated 31.7.2008, Annexure P1. The educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Canal Guards was 10+2 and stringent physical standards had been prescribed. The petitioners had also successfully undergone a Physical Efficiency Test. The petitioners were appointed as Canal Guards in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- + Grade pay Rs. 1300/-, further revised to Rs. 4400-7440 + Grade Pay Rs. 1300/- in the light of the Haryana Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 2008. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they hold the qualification of 10+2, yet they are being treated at par, both in terms of duties assigned as also pay scales with that of Beldars i.e. a Class IV post whereas most of such Beldars are illiterate and, in any case, possess lower qualifications than the petitioners. A reference has been made to various posts existing in the respondent-Irrigation Department itself i.e. Tracer, Signaller, Clerk and Assistant Revenue Clerk wherein the qualifications prescribed are Matric only but yet they have been classified to be members of Group ''C service and, accordingly, are enjoying a pay scale of Rs. 5200- 20200. Towards such assertion, learned Senior counsel has referred to the Haryana Irrigation Department Draftsman and Tracer (Group C) Service Rules, the Haryana Irrigation Department Signallers (Group C) Service Rules, 1985, Haryana Irrigation Department Circles Clerical (Group C) Service Rules, 1980 and the Haryana Irrigation Department Revenue and Assessment Clerk (Group C) Service Rules, 1991. Learned Senior counsel in terms of adverting to the statutory Rules afore-noticed would contend that the educational qualifications prescribed for such Group ''C post were merely Matric and, as such, there would be no justification in classifying the Canal Guards who possess a higher qualification of 10+2 on a lower pedestal i.e. to be holders of Group ''D'' post and thereby granting a lower pay scale.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have even referred to certain posts falling in other Departments in the State of Haryana wherein the minimum qualification prescribed is 10+2 pass or even lower and yet such post falls in Group ''C'' category and enjoys a higher pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200. In specific terms, learned counsel would refer to the post of Constable (General duty) in the Haryana Police for which the qualification prescribed for appointment is 10+2. The pay scale of a Constable in Haryana Police is Rs. 5200-20200/- + Grade Pay Rs. 2000/-. Likewise, the instance of a Forest Guard in the Forest Department and of the post of Wild Life Guard has also been furnished wherein inspite of lower educational qualifications having been prescribed, the pay scale of a Group ''C'' post has been made admissible. On the basis of such averments and pleadings, the action of the State Government in classifying the post of Canal Guards as Group ''D'' post if sought to be labelled as discriminatory and arbitrary.

Further submission raised on behalf of the petitioners is that no statutory rules have been framed governing the service conditions of the post of Canal Guards and, as such, the petitioners are being exploited inasmuch as they are being called upon to discharge the duties of the post of Beldars which is a Group ''D'' post. Lack of promotional avenues for Canal Guards is a further grievance which is sought to be redressed in terms of filing the present writ petitions.

Per contra, Mr. Harish Rathee, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana would refer to the written statement filed on behalf of the State and contend that all the petitioners had responded to an advertisement for filling up 750 posts of Canal Guards (Group D) in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/-. Learned State counsel would submit that the Group, pay scale and eligibility conditions for the post were clearly mentioned in the advertisement at Annexure P1. Upon being selected, the petitioners have been issued identical appointment letters and one of which stands appended as Annexure R2 with the reply filed in Civil Writ Petition No. 10397 of 2011. As such, it has been argued that the petitioners, at the very outset, were clear that they were submitting their application forms for appointment to a Group ''D'' post in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200. Still further, in the light of the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letters issued to the petitioners, it was clearly stipulated that their services would be regulated under the Haryana instructions/Rules as also executive instructions already issued or to be issued from time to time. Learned State counsel would contend that it was only upon acceptance of all such conditions that the petitioners had accepted appointment and had joined on the post of Canal Guards. It is also the stand of the State that vide notification dated 3.1.2012, the Haryana Irrigation Department, Circle Cadre, Workmen Establishment Group ''D'' Service Rules, 2011 stand promulgated wherein apart from other posts Canal Guards and Beldars have both been classified as Group ''D'' posts. It has been urged on behalf of the State that no exception can be taken with regard to any directions that may have been issued by the appropriate authority as regards assigning of duties of Canal Guards which may be akin to the duties of the Beldars. It has further been argued on behalf of the State that the pay scale for different posts has been fixed by the Government upon relevant parameters after considering the duties/responsibilities and requirement of work. The comparison with other posts of the same Department which are governed by a separate set of statutory rules as also with posts falling in other Departments has been stated to be completely irrelevant.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Such view is being taken precisely for the following reasons:--

i) The writ petitions are completely bereft of the necessary and requisite particulars and no databased material has been placed on record wherefrom the equality in pursuance of duties, responsibilities and obligations inter se the posts of Canal Guards on the one hand and the post of Signallers, Tracers, Clerks, Assistant Revenue Clerks in the Irrigation Department, Constables in Haryana Police, Forest Guards and Wild Life Guards under the Forest Department on the other hand could be shown so as to claim parity as regards pay scales and for reclassification as a Group ''C'' post. Such issues falling in the domain of the executive would be open to judicial review only on the limited ground of patent discrimination or arbitrariness. In the absence of the relevant and necessary material/pleadings on record, such a finding cannot be returned.

ii) Even otherwise, the prayers raised in the present writ petitions would fall in the sphere of taking policy decisions. This Court is not competent to give directions to lay down policy, issue guidelines for assigning the duties with regard to a particular post in the light of qualifications prescribed as also for creating promotional avenues. Such directions would amount to entrenching upon area of policy making which is exclusively within the purview of the appropriate Government.

For the reasons recorded above, no case for interference is made out and the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. It shall, however, be open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate State authority/ies for redressal of their grievances. Petitions dismissed.