AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
1) The present Special Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 978 of 2014, dated 13.02.2019.
2) The said writ petition had been preferred by the respondents / writ petitioners to assail the discriminatory treatment meted out to the Group ‘D’ employees of the Forest department, inasmuch as, the Forest department sought to grant the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission to the Group A, B and C employees of the Forest department w.e.f. 01.01.2006, but so far as the Group ‘D’ employees are concerned, the benefit of upgraded salary was given only from 24.03.2011 in terms of the orders dated 24.03.2011 and 06.04.2011.
3) The writ petition was initially allowed on 29.03.2017, which was assailed by the State vide Special Appeal No. 87 of 2018. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19.03.2018, for reconsideration on the ground that reliefs have been granted to the writ petitioners without quashing the impugned Government Orders dated 24.03.2011 and 06.04.2011. The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge upon remand, and by the impugned judgment the writ petition has been allowed issuing a mandamus to the State Government to enforce the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, as adopted by the State Government, vide orders dated 24.03.2011 and 06.04.2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, even qua the Group ‘D’ employees of the Forest department.
4) The submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State is that the learned Single Judge has not quashed the Government Orders dated 24.03.2011 and 06.04.2011, while granting the said relief.
5) Though there is no specific order quashing the said Government Orders dated 24.03.2011 and 06.04.2011, in so far as they meted out the discriminatory treatment to the respondents, i.e., the Group ‘D’ employees of the Forest department, the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has discussed in detail the aspect of discriminatory treatment being meted out to the respondents Group ‘D’ employees of the Forest department. Therefore, it goes without saying that the Government Orders dated 24.03.2011 and 06.04.2011, in so far as they discriminate against Group ‘D’ employees of the Forest department, cannot be sustained.
6) The further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-State is that the Government is entitled to formulate its policy keeping in view its financial resources and, while denying the revision of the pay scale to the Group ‘D’ employees of the Forest department from 01.01.2006, that was the consideration which prevailed in the State Government. We do not find any merit in the submission. If there was financial stringency / constraint, how is it that the said constraint was not felt when the revised pay scales were granted under the 6th Pay Commission to the Group A, Group B and Group C employees of the Forest Department and, how is it that the realization that the State has financial constraint dawned on the State Government only when it came to giving the benefit of the revised pay scale under the 6th Pay Commission to the Group ‘D’ employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
7) We, therefore, cannot accept the said submission of the appellants. The appellants cannot discriminate between one set of employees, and another set of employees, working in the said department when it comes to the revision of pay scales in implementation of the Central pay Commission report. If there was financial constraint, that constraint should have affected the revision of pay scales of all the employees falling in Groups A, B and C, as well. It appears that merely because the Group ‘D’ employees do not have a voice and, are not the decision makers, they have been discriminated against. The decision makers have served their cause before addressing the cause of the Group ‘D’ employees, which should not have been done.
8) We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present Special Appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
All pending applications also stands disposed of.