JUDGMENT
P.C. Phukan, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.7.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 162 of 1996 (Old No. C.R. 48/88).
2. We have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent company Tripura Jute Mills Ltd., a Govt. of Tripura undertaking.
3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that he was appointed as Pharmacist (Category-A) in the pay scale of Rs. 330-10-400-15-580 per month by the respondent company vide Memorandum dated 29.6.1981 (Annexure-2). Earlier by a resolution dated 24.12.1977 the respondent company adopted the Govt. of Tripura pay scales for its employees. Subsequent to such adoption, the pay scale of Pharmacist (Category-A) was revised to Rs. 400-15-550-20-750-25-900 per month. The petitioner was given this revised pay scale with effect from 1.12.1981 (Annexure-4). The pay scale of the post of Accounts Assistant/Overseer was also revised to Rs. 400-15-550-20-750-25-900 per month with effect from 1.12.1981. The respondent company
redesignated the post of Pharmacist (Category-A) as Medical Assistant without changing the terms and conditions of service, remuneration, and nature of duties and responsibilities vide letter dated 7.9.1982 (Annexure-3). Subsequently, the pay scale of Overseer was revised to Rs. 800-50-1050-60-1530 per month vide Memorandum dated 21.4.1985 (Annexure-9B). But the pay scale of Pharmacist (Category-A) redesignated as Medical Assistant was not so revised. Thus, the petitioner was left out and deprived of the benefit of higher pay scale. Therefore, the question arises whether the petitioner is entitled to the revised pay scale of Overseer/Accounts Assistant on the ground that at the time of petitioner’s initial appointment as Pharmacist (Category-A) redesignated as Medical Assistant, he was given the pre-revised pay scale of Overseer/Accounts Assistant. Initially all these posts carried the same pay scale.
4. In an earlier writ petition of the petitioner registered as Civil Rule No. 36 of 1987, this Court by the final order dated 16.6.1987 (Annexure-6) directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case so as to confer benefit on him and avoid discrimination between persons initially drawing the same pay scale and gave liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again if he still left aggrieved after such reconsideration. It transpires from the respondent’s letter dated 29.8.1987 addressed to the petitioner (Annexure-8) that pursuant to this Court’s aforesaid order they considered the petitioner’s case and informed him that since as per the latest “Wage Agreement” dated 18.3.1987 (Annexure-RC to the additional affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent) his salary as Medical Assistant was fixed at Rs. 730-25 per month with effect from 1.12.1986, nothing more was required to be done. Expressing his grievance against what was stated in the aforesaid letter dated 29.8.1987, the petitioner submitted representation dated 11.12.1987 (Annexure-7A) to the respondent followed by the reminder dated 12.1.1988 (Annexure-7B).
5. Unable to get any relief form the respondents the petitioner had against approached this Court in the instant writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to grant him the same benefit granted to the Overseer/Accounts Assistant, to grant him the benefit of encaderisation as contained in Memo dated 2.5.1985 (Annexure-9A) placing the Overseer in the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1530 per month with effect from 1.4.1985 and to extend to him the benefit of revision of pay scale etc. for officers and supervisors with effect from 1.4.1985 as contained in Circular dated 21.4.1985 (Annexure-9B) and the interim relief granted to the officers and supervisors with effect from 1.4.1987 as contained in officer order dated 10.8.1987 (Annexure-9C).
6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner cannot claim pay scale equal to that of Overseer/Accounts Assistant as nature of works and duties of these posts are different from that of Medical Assistant and that being in identical pay scale at a particular point of time does not mean that the volume of works and duties in both the posts are same. In the additional affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that though initially the petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist (Category-A), when it was detected that he does not possess the requisite medical qualification for that post (he was holding only) a certificate, Annexure-1 dated 13.6.1968, from Dacca National Medical Institution (not recognised in India), his designation was changed to Medical Assistant. It is stated in Para 18 thereof that-
“….in compliance with the Hon’ble Court’s order, pay scale of the petitioner was upgraded and wage agreement was drafted accordingly”.
7. It is an absolutely incorrect statement. In the earlier writ petition this Court passed the order on 16.6.1987 (Annexure-6) and the wage agreement was drafted and executed prior to that on 18.3.1987 (Annexure-R/C, to the additional affidavit-in-petitioner). Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was upgraded and wage agreement was drafted in compliance with this Court’s order. We are also unable to accept the respondent’s contention that the petitioner cannot claim pay scale equal to that of Overseer/Accounts Assistant as nature of works and duties of these posts are different from that of the Medical Assistant. While the petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist (Category-A) in the pay scale of Rs. 330-580 P.M., the post of Overseer/Accountants Assistant also carried the same pay scale of Rs. 330-580 P.M. While the pay scale of Pharmacist (Category-A) was revised to Rs. 400-900 P.M. with effect from 1.12.1981, the pay scale of Overseer/Accounts Assistant was also revised to Rs. 400-900 P.M. with effect from 1.12.1981. Thus, the parity was maintained. The subsequent redesignation of the post of Pharmacist (Category-A) to that of Medical Assistant cannot be a justification to disturb this parity, for, the redesignation order (Annexure-3) expressly and categorically says “terms and conditions of service, remuneration and nature of duties and responsibilities will remain the same”. Hence it does not stand to reason to contend that after redesignation of the post held by the petitioner, he cannot be granted the same pay scale as that of Overseer/Accounts Assistant, the nature of duties and responsibilities remaining the same. In fact, even after redesignation the pay scale of the post held by the petitioner and that of Overseer/ Accounts Assistant continued to be the same. Only subsequently
such parity in pay scale was disturbed. The respondents could not show us any convincing reason for doing so. As regards pay scale, the petitioner holding the post of Pharmacist (Category-A) redesignated as Medical Assistant and holders of the posts of Overseer/Medicals Assistant were equals and when equals are unreasonably treated differently. Article 14 of the Constitution comes into play. There appears no reason to treat the post of Medical Assistant as in worker category disentitling the holder of this post to the revised pay scale of Overseer/Medical assistant treating such posts as in supervisory category. It has been persistently argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the post of Medical Assistant like the post of Accounts Assistant/Overseer is a supervisory post. Ultimately the respondents themselves conceded to this and upgraded the post of Medical Assistant to supervisory category as is evident from the order dated 12.2.1999 (Annexure-7 to C.M. application No. 86/2000) which is reproduced below :
“In the interest of the company the post of Medical Asstt. being held by Shri P.K. Chakraborty of Medical Wing of the company is upgraded to supervisory category in its existing pay structure with immediate effect.”
8. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the post of Pharmacist (Category-A) redesignated as Medical Assistant like Accounts Assistant/Overseer has all along been a post in supervisory category and hence there is no question of giving him the pay scale of Rs. 730-25 P.M. as per the Wage Agreement dated 18.3.1987 (Annexure-R/C) not meant for posts in supervisory category and giving him the pay scale prescribed in Govt. of Tripura, Finance Deptt. Letter No. F.6(6)-FIN(PC)/99 dated 5.7.1999 meant for the workers of the respondent – Tripura Jute Mills Ltd.
9. In support of his contention that the petitioner holding the post of Medical Assistant is entitled to the same benefit of upward revision of pay scale etc. as was given in respect of the post of Accounts Assistant/Overseer, learned senior counsel Mr. S. Deb refers to the decision in Employees of Tannery & Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1367 wherein it has been held –
“… this shows that there would be parity in pay scales of the employees falling in the various enterprise of the Government of India which are following the Central Government D.A. pattern. There appears to be no reason why the petitioners would be denied similar parity in the matter of pay-scales with the staff falling in the aforesaid four categories employed with
the Cotton Corporation of India specially when such employees were having the same pay scales in 1970.”
10. Learned Single Judge found the facts of the above case a little different. However, the Apex Court highlighted that the petitioners should not have been denied the parity in the pay scales specially when the employees were having the same pay scale in 1970. In the instant case also, the petitioner holding the post of Pharmacist (Category-A) redesignated as Medical Assistant and the holders of the post of Accounts Assistant/Overseer were initially having the same pay scale.
11. Learned Single Judge recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that until and unless the petitioner is allowed to hold the post of Pharmacist (Category-A), he cannot claim the revised pay scale of Rs. 800-1350. This contention overlooks the fact that after redesignation there was no post called Pharmacist (Category-A) and hence there is no question of allowing the petitioner to hold such a non-existant post. The learned Single Judge also observed that it could not be lost sight of that although the petitioner was aggrieved by redesignation, he did not approach this Court. He did not presumably because even after such redesignation, he was allowed to enjoy the same status and pay scale.
12. In view of what has been stated above, we direct the respondents to give to the petitioner the benefit of upward pay revision(s) granted in respect of the post of Overseer/Accounts Assistant with effect from the date(s) of such revision(s). The respondents need not pay to the petitioner the arrear pay and allowances due upto 11.2.1999. The respondents shall, however, pay to the petitioner such arrear pay and allowances with effect from 12.2.1999 on the basis of his pay notionally fixed.
13. In the result, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.7.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.
14. The petitioner shall furnish a certified copy of this judgment and order to the respondents who shall comply with the above direction of this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same.