AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Swatanter Kumar, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that anomaly was created by the respondents by equating the basic pay scales of Haryana Agriculture Services Class I and Haryana Agriculture Services Class II posts w.e.f. 1.5.1990.. Class II post in the agriculture department of the Haryana State are feeder posts to Class I posts and as such they could not have been equated at any given point of time.
It is not necessary to go into the detailed facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition. In as much as the facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioners who were appointed to Class II posts in the Haryana agriculture department were getting different pay scales and when subsequently promoted to Class I posts were getting different pay scales for different periods. The anomaly as afore-referred was created on 1.4.1990 by the respondents.
With effect from
HAS II (Stat) Class II
HASI (Stat) Class I
Before Feb., 1969
Rs. 350-900
Rs. 350-1200
W.e.f. Feb., 1969
Rs. 350-900
Rs. 400-1250
W.e.f. July, 1980
Rs. 800-1600
Rs. 900-1800
W.e.f. April, 1987
Rs. 2000-3200
Rs. 2000-3500
W.e.f. 1.5.1990
Rs. 2000-3500
Rs. 2000-3500
The petitioners moved representations to the respondents and last representation was submitted in the year 1994. Respondents then conceded to the request of the employees and removed this anomaly in the pay scales ot the two different posts but it was removed w.e.f. 1994 itself. Resultantly, the grievance of the petitioners in regard upon to the period from 1990 to 1994 still persisted and after serving notice upon respondents, the present petition was filed.
The above averments of the petitioners, as made in para 2 of the writ petition, have not been disputed by the respondents. Intact, the claim of the respondents is that in order to make minimum number of pay scales, such steps were taken by the Government and separate rules govern them as such the government was competent to fix new pay scales.
This controversy between the parties did not detain the court any further as similar question in similar circumstances through of different departments was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Civil Writ Petition No. 1380 of 1988 (K.C. Hooda and others v. State of Haryana andothers) decided on 2.12.1998. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition by holding as under :
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been- held in the aforesaid Division Bench judgments that the pay scale of the posts in the promotional cadre has to be higher than the posts m the feeder cadre. The anomaly of making the pay scales equal of the posts in the feeder cadre and the promotional cadre occurred w.e.f. January 1, 1986. If the respondents have taken their own time to remove this anomaly that should not deprive the category of the petitioners to have the higher pay scale w.e.f. the date the anomaly occurred. Supposing the petitioners had filed writ petition in this Court for the relief which was ultimately granted by the respondents w.e.f. October 1, 1991 and if this Court had taken some time to decide the matter, the decision to revise the pay scale of the promotional cadre post would be made effective from the date the anomaly had occurred. Simply because the respondents have taken a decision vide order at Annexure P.3.1 on October 1, 1991, would not mean that the allegation which occurred on January 1,1986 would be removed only w.e.f. the date of the decision."
The judgment in K.C. Hooda''s case (supra) is binding on this Court and in any case, I have reasons to differ with the reasonings given as the settled principle of service jurisprudence would not permit that feeder post and the promotion post should have the same basic pay scale. However, on record, nothing has been placed by the petitioners to show that they have taken any steps much less with regard to their pay scales w.e.f. May, 1990 to 1994 when they made representation, Annexure P. 1. In that event, the Court is not obliged to grant arrears to the petitioners and the grant of relied shall be restricted to a period that three years from the date of filing of this petition i.e. January, 1995. It is made clear that the respondents shall remove the anomaly afore-referred notionally w.e.f. 1.5.1990 on which date it was made but the petitioners shall be entitled to arrears only for the limited period afore-referred.
In view of the above discussion, the petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
Petition partly allowed.