State Of Haryana And Another vs. Baldev Kumar
Original PDF →Facts
The respondent-plaintiff, Baldev Kumar, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he is entitled to have his pay fixed at Rs. 5000/- in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, at par with a junior colleague, Bhagat Singh. The plaintiff, initially appointed as Helper on 06.02.1987, was promoted to Assistant Electrician on 05.04.1989 and Electrician on 19.11.1991. Bhagat Singh, though junior, was promoted to Electrician on 05.07.1999 in the higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. The plaintiff contended that a junior employee cannot be granted a higher pay scale than a senior employee in the same cadre and performing similar duties. The State argued that the higher pay scale was granted to Bhagat Singh as per a High Court order and subsequent notifications regarding technical pay scales. The Civil Judge decreed the suit, and the District Judge dismissed the State's appeal, partly due to a significant delay in filing. The State appealed this dismissal to the High Court.
Held
The High Court held that the explanation provided by the State for fixing the plaintiff's salary at a lower rate was without merit. The Court reasoned that the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of pay scale between technical and non-technical posts) ordinance of 2014 was intended to prevent individuals from claiming higher pay scales based on technical qualifications where they were not entitled, but it did not prohibit a senior employee from seeking a 'step-up' of their pay to match that of a junior employee performing similar duties. The Court noted that the decree had already been satisfied by the State. Furthermore, the Court found that a similar case involving another employee, Partap Singh, had been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, establishing a precedent. Considering that the decree was already implemented and a similar issue had been conclusively decided by higher courts, the High Court found no purpose in remanding the case back to the District Judge for a technical compliance or re-adjudication on merits. The Court found no illegality in the lower courts' judgments or any misinterpretation of evidence by the State. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgments of the lower courts.
Key Issues
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that his pay should be fixed at par with his junior colleague, Bhagat Singh, in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000? (Issue framed by the Civil Court, turning on principles of pay parity and service rules). 2. Whether the District Judge erred in dismissing the State's appeal due to a delay of 259 days in filing, without adjudicating on the merits of the case? (Issue arising from the High Court's review of the District Judge's order). Contentions: Petitioner (State of Haryana): Argued that the District Judge should have examined the appeal on its merits and that sufficient reasons were provided for the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the time taken to obtain a legal opinion from the District Attorney. Relied on the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of pay scale between technical and non-technical posts) ordinance and Notification dated 11.03.2014. Respondent (Baldev Kumar): Contended that remanding the case would be an empty formality as the decree had already been implemented. Further argued that a similar controversy involving another employee, Partap Singh, was decided in favour of the employee up to the Supreme Court, and his case would be covered by that precedent. Relied on the judgment in RSA No. 1457 of 2021 and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed in detail, but the context refers to service rules and pay fixation, and the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of pay scale between technical and non-technical posts) ordinance and Notification dated 11.03.2014.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:040478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246
RSA-575-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.03.2024
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ......Appellants
VERSUS
BALDEV KUMAR
.......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. B. S. Mittal, Advocate
for the respondent.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Defendant-State is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the District Judge, Sirsa bearing Civil Appeal No. 169 of 2019 vide judgment dated 12.01.2021. 2. Briefly summarized the facts of the present case are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed the Civil Suit for the declaration to the effect that he is entitled to get his pay fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.05.1990 and is further entitled to get his pay fixed at Rs. 5000/- at par with Bhagat Singh Electrician, junior to the plaintiff and in the same VISHAL SHARMA 2024.04.24 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-575-2022 (O&M)
-2-
cadre, department and also performing the same nature of duties. It was stated that a junior employee cannot be granted pay higher than the senior and that the stepping up of the pay scale is not being done causing prejudice to the plaintiff. It was further averred that the respondent-plaintiff was initially appointed as Helper on 06.02.1987 through Employment Exchange, Sirsa in the pay scale of Rs. 750-900 and thereafter was promoted as Assistant Electrician on 05.04.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400. He was further promoted as Electrician on 19.11.1991 in the pay scale of 1200- 2040. A colleague Bhagat Singh, Electrician was initially appointed as Helper on 27.04.1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 by the appellants- defendants and was thereafter promoted as a Assistant Electrician on 05.04.1989 in the pay scale of 950-1400 and further promoted as a Electrician on 05.07.1999 in the pay scale of 4000-6000. It was hence submitted that the plaintiff had always been senior to Shri Bhagat Singh in the same cadre and department and they had been initially inducted at the same level and have earned promotions thereafter. Thus, notwithstanding that the respondent-plaintiff was discharging the same duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by Bhagat Singh, the pay scale of the respondent-plaintiff was lower.
It was also averred that prior to 1995, there were no service rules for Haryana Roadways Employees and the Rules of 1995 i.e. Haryana Transport Department (Group-C), Haryana Roadways Service Rules were notified. It was also averred that the co-employee Bhagat Singh was an under Metric and who did not even possess an ITI Diploma but had been placed in the pay scale of 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.05.1990 and he had been VISHAL SHARMA 2024.04.24 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-575-2022 (O&M)
-3-
awarded first ACP scale of Rs. 5000-7850 and the basic pay was fixed at Rs. 5000. He was given benefit of second ACP on 01.06.2010 in the pay scale of 5200-20200+ Rs. 3300 as grade pay and the pay was fixed at Rs. 12780+ grade pay as on 01.06.2010. Benefit of third ACP was granted to him in the pay scale of Rs. 15360/- + Rs. 4000 Grade Pay. The said benefits had not been given to the respondent-plaintiff despite being similarly situated. Hence, the above suit was filed.
On notice, the appellant State entered appearance and raised various objections with respect to the maintainability of the claim. It was however not disputed that the respondent-plaintiff was senior to Bhagat Singh Electrician. It was however stated that the benefit of the higher pay scale was granted to Bhagat Singh as per the orders passed by the High Court in CWP-14407 of 2012 and that the Government of Haryana notified the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of pay scale between technical and non-technical posts) ordinance and the Notification dated 11.03.2014 as per which the employees who were getting the technical pay scale had been withdrawn. It was further pointed out that the employees who were getting the technical pay scale prior to 10.12.2013 would continue to get technical pay scale while the persons who had not been given the said benefits could not be given the said pay equal to the other employees.
Upon consideration of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief declaration
as prayed for? OPP
Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD VISHAL SHARMA 2024.04.24 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-575-2022 (O&M)
-4-
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPP
Whether this court has no juri iction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from the filling the present suit? OPD
Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from this court? OPD
Relief.
Parties led their respective evidence and upon consideration of the contention and evidence led by the respective parties, the Civil Court came to a conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff is senior in the same cadre and discharging the same function and responsibilities and that there is no valid foundation for justifying the difference between their salaries and no reasons have been shown by the Appellant-State on the basis whereof the benefit of stepping up of said pay scale was denied to the respondent- plaintiff. It was claimed that the respondent-plaintiff was not claiming the up gradation of salary on the ground of technical/non-technical qualification but on the ground of parity of pay scale with his junior. The Act of 2014 relied upon by the Appellant-State debarred avoiding of a higher pay for technical qualification and its purpose was held to not frustrate the right of a senior employee to seek step up of his pay at par with the salary of the junior employee. In view of the same, it was held that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of declaration claimed by him and a mandatory injunction was issued to the appellant-defendant-State to grant him step up of a pay scale of his salary at par with the junior who was earlier drawing VISHAL SHARMA 2024.04.24 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-575-2022 (O&M)
-5-
higher salary than him. The arrears were directed to be paid alongwith interest @ 8% per annum.
Aggrieved thereof, an appeal was preferred by the State of Haryana before the District judge, Sirsa. It was also noticed that the said appeal was filed after a delay of 259 days. Finding that no satisfactory explanation had been given by the appellant-State of Haryana for a delay of more than 09 months in filing of the appeal and learned District Judge, Sirsa relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Chief Post Master General and others versus Living Media India Ltd. and another” reported as (2012) 16 GSTR 477, while dismissing the appeal for condonation of delay. Aggrieve thereof, the present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contends that the District Judge ought to have examined the case on merits and that the delay had wrongly not been condoned. Sufficient reasons for delay in filing of the appeal had been given by the Appellant State of Haryana and it was pointed out that after the decree had been passed by the Civil judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, the office of District Attorney was contacted and a legal opinion was sought with respect to the case being fit for filing of appeal or not. After obtaining the said legal opinion, the appeal was filed but a delay of 259 days had occurred in the meanwhile. It is contended that the said delay was not on account of any lapse on the part of the State but was on account of delay in submission of the opinion by the District Attorney.
Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on the other hand contends that the remanding of the case at this stage with District Judge for fresh adjudication would be a mere empty formality since the Appellant State of VISHAL SHARMA 2024.04.24 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-575-2022 (O&M)
-6-
Haryana has already implemented the decree and the admissible benefits have already been released in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. He further contends that even otherwise, a similar controversy in relation to the Haryana Roadways Sirsa, pertaining to a store boy Partap Singh was also decreed by the Courts below and benefit of stepping up had been given. The State of Haryana had preferred appeal bearing RSA No. 1457 of 2021 against the decree granted by the Courts for declaration and mandatory injunction to the State granting a stepping up of pay. The said Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 20.04.2022 and the concurrent findings recorded by the Subordinate Courts were upheld. Against the said judgment dated 20.04.2022, the State of Haryana had preferred Special Leave Petition bearing Diary No. 25095 of 2022 which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.09.2022. It is contended that the case of the respondent-plaintiff would even otherwise be covered by the said judgment rendered by this Court and as upheld by the Supreme Court.
Counsel appearing for the State is not in a position to dispute that the judgment and decree had already been complied with and similar benefit to other employee has already been tested by it uptill the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Having heard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and taking into consideration the judgments rendered by the Court below as also the evidence adduced on record, the following facts remain undisputed :- VISHAL SHARMA 2024.04.24 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-575-2022 (O&M)
-7-
i) That the respondent-plaintiff is senior to Bhagat Singh,
Electrician ii) That the respondent-plaintiff and his co-employee Bhagat Singh
Electrician were performing the same duties and responsibilities
in the same Department.
iii) That the salary paid/released to the co-employee, who was junior to the respondent-plaintiff was higher than the pay scale being released in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. iv) That the sole reason given by the appellant-defendant State of Haryana for fixation of a low salary is that post coming into effect of the Act of 2014, the benefit of a higher pay scale could not given to the respondent-plaintiff.
I find that the above said explanation is devoid of merit. The intent of the Act of 2014 was against grant of benefit to a person who claimed a higher pay scale and it would not operate as a prohibition against a person who is claiming stepping up of his pay at par with the salary being given to his juniors. The said provision could not have been read to the prejudice of an employee who is otherwise entitled to the benefits that become payable to him. Further, it is also noticed that the decree in question has already been satisfied by the appellant-defendant State of Haryana.
It is also noticed that under similar circumstances and in relation to other employee working with the Haryana Roadways, Sirsa namely Partap Singh, the said benefit of stepping up has already upheld in the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed in RSA No.1457 of 2021 passed by this Court, which such judgment has already been affirmed by the Hon’ble VISHAL SHARMA 2024.04.24 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-575-2022 (O&M)
-8-
Supreme Court. Hence, considering from either of the said perspectives, remanding the case, merely for a technical compliance and for affording an opportunity of hearing and advancing argument on merit would only delay the finalization of the proceedings and would not serve any purpose. Moreover, this Court has also considered the merits of the claim raised by the State while hearing the present appeal and has also examined the judgment in RSA No. 1457 of 2021 passed by this Court.
Counsel for the State could not point out any illegality in judgment and decree dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa or as to how the case of respondent-plaintiff would not be covered by the judgment in RSA-1457 of 2021. He also could not point out any illegality or misreading or mis-interpretation of evidence by the Court.
In the said circumstances, remanding the case, solely for a technical compliance by the District Judge, would serve no real purpose and would cause travesty of justice.
Finding no merit, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgments passed by the Courts is affirmed.
All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) MARCH 15 , 2024
JUDGE Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable
: Yes/No VISHAL SHARMA 2024.04.24 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.