State of HP and others vs Dr. A.C. Shandil

Surinder Singh, J.—In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP (T) No.4302 of 2008, whereby the petition filed by the respondent herein, was allowed and Annexure A-5 dated 24.4.1993 was quashed and set aside, directing the appellants to keep the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture, distinct and separate in a higher pay scale and also to remove anomaly by stepping up the salary of the respondent, vis-a-vis Shri Tashi Daba and Shri Hari Ram Noor, his promotee-juniors.

Heard and gone through the record.

Admitted facts of the case can be stated thus. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.1.1987, the respondent applied for the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture (DDA) in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1850. On having been selected for the said post, he joined his duties on 15.1.2008.

(ii) A notification Annexure A-4 dated 13.4.1989 was issued by the appellant-State whereby the above pay scale of DDA was revised to Rs. 12001850/ Rs. 1400-2000 (S.G.) to Rs. 2400-4000/-.

(iii) The feeder category to the post of DDA was District Agriculture Officer (DAO) and other equated posts of the Department like ADO in the pay-scale of Rs. 825-1580/ Rs. 1200-1700 (S.G.) to Rs. 2000-3500/-.

(iv) The pay-scale of Assistant Development Officer (ADO) was revised from Rs. 700-1200/ Rs. 900-1400 (S.G.) to Rs. 1640-2925.

(v) Vide notification dated 24.4.1993 (Annexure A5) existing three different categories of posts, i.e., ADO, DAO and other Class-II posts and also post of DDA, which was in the pay-scale of Rs. 20003500, Rs. 2100-3700 and Rs. 2400-4000/- after eight years of service and scale of Rs. 3700-5300 after 18 years of service, were merged, forming one cadre.

(vi) The respondent was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- with effect from 1.1.1991, as per Annexure A6 in the month of May, 1994 and his basic pay at Rs. 2580/-.

Feeling aggrieved by Annexure A5 aforesaid the respondent made representation for re-fixing his pay considering that he was a direct recruit against Class-I Gazetted post, which did not find favour with the concerned quarter, thus rejected. He sent another representation on 17.8.1994, but it also failed to bear the desired result, as such the respondent filed writ in this Court seeking the quashment of Annexure A5, which was allowed, hence the present appeal.

We, on re-appreciation of the matter on the contentions raised, find that the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is perfectly within the fourcorners of law requiring no interference.

The post of DDA is Class-I Gazetted Post. As per Recruitment and Promotion Rules Annexure A2, the mode of requirement is 50% by direct and 50% by promotion. In the year 1987 vide advertisement dated 22.1.1987 Annexure A1, the applications were invited by the appellant-Department to fill-up the said post by direct recruitment, on the prescribed form for the said post from the candidates having the essential qualification of Master degree in any discipline of Agriculture Sciences or its equivalent with five years experience in Farm Management/ Agriculture Extension/ Agriculture Development including administrative experience. Ph.D. in any one branch of Agriculture Science was desirable qualification. Since the respondent fulfilled the criteria of essential qualification, as such he applied for the said post and was selected and joined his duties as such on 15.1.1988. Another 50% posts were filled-up by promotion from amongst DAOs or other equivalent posts with five years experience in the grade. Respondent''s pay at the entry was Rs. 2580/-in the payscale of Rs. 2200-4000. ADOs were earlier the Agriculture Inspectors which was a Class-III post. Consequently, ADOs were also made Class-III Gazetted, but on its merger vide Annexure A5 they attained the status of Class-I Gazetted Officers whereas DAOs before its merger were Class-II Gazetted Officers experience of ADOs and DAOs were different and lesser than the DDA.

Further, prior to the issuance of Annexure A5 from the category of ADOs and DAOs five years service experience was an essentiality to the post of Deputy Director. Even their essential qualification was lesser than the post of DDA. Their pay-scales were also lesser than that of the Deputy Director.

Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, learned Single Judge observed that the decision of the appellants creating a common cadre by merging the posts of ADO, DAO and DDA without considering the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of these different categories including their pay-scales, their functions and gazetted status, was illegal and arbitrary. We find that the nature and duties of the posts, powers exercised by the officers holding a post the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities, the minimum qualification, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post and the salary attached to each of the posts, were not taken into consideration in determining the equivalent of post, which is a sine-qua-non as held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and others, at page 678: AIR 1981 SC 1990 at pp.1994-95) and further relied upon by the Apex court in S.P. Shivprasad Pipal Vs. Union of India and Others, which were properly discussed and applied by the learned Single Judge.

In our considered view, the above principles were not at all taken into account by the appellants, which resulted in disparity and also higher pay-scales to the juniors, namely, Tashi Daba and Hari Ram Noor creating an anomalous position without application of mind by stepping up the salary of respondent vis-�vis his juniors, which was rightly ordered to be corrected. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment, therefore, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.