JUDGMENT
J.L. Gupta, J.
1. Is the action of the respondents in granting the revised scales of pay to the Junior Engineers of the Corporation with effect from January 1,1993 while other Junior Engineers working in various Departments of the State Government have been granted the same scales of pay with effect from January 1, 1992 violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case.
2. The petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The Haryana Government had revised the pay scales of Junior Engineers in all Government departments of Haryana w.e.f. 1.1.1992 as under :-
Existing pay scale Revised pay scale.
i) Rs. 1400-2300 i) 1640-2900
ii) Rs. 1640-2900 ii) 2000-3200
(available to 50% of the (for those J. Es who complete
cadre as promotional Grade) fifteen years regular and
satisfactory service and have
not been promoted to the next
higherpost).
It has been decided to grant
two advance increments to a
J.E who acquires AMIE or an
equivalent degree subject to
the condition that he has
completed a minimum of 5 years
regular and satisfactory
service.
3. The petitioner claims that on May 4,1971, the Corporation had decided that the “scales of pay as revised by the Government of Haryana from time to time will be applicable to the employees of the Corporation directly recruited by it.” The grievance is that in spite of this decision, the Junior Engineers working with the respondent-corporation have been granted the benefit of the revised scales of pay only with effect from January, 1, 1993 while others who were similarly situated, have been given this benefit with effect from January 1, 1992. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution.
4. On behalf of the respondents, a written statement has been filed by Mr. B.D. Kalra, Personnel Advisor to the Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises. According to the respondents, it is “the inherent administrative power of the Government to prescribe and grant scales of pay to any class or category of employees of Public Undertakings borne on different and distinct cadre and governed by separate set. of statutory rules from any date. It was after “a careful examination of the proposal by the Standing Committee (Constituted by the Finance Department for creation and upgradation of posts, their pay scales, mode of recruitment, terms and conditions of service) in its meeting held on 30.12.1992, it was decided to grant to Junior Engineers higher pay scales w.e.f 1.1.993…” It has been further stated that the council of Ministers had already decided in its meeting held on 14.5.1990 to give effect to the revised pay scales with effect from the 1st day of the month in which the proposal was approved. Even if the Government had not revised the pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1993, “the petitioner had no legal right to claim the revision.” It has also been pointed out that Civil Writ Petition No. 12483 of 1990 has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22.2.1993.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The two questions that arise for consideration are :-
i) Is it the inherent power of the Government to grant the revised scales of pay to different categories of employees from different dates ?
ii) Is the action of the respondents in granting revised scales of pay to the Junior Engineers working in the respondent-corporation with effect from 1.1.1993 while other Junior Engineers have been granted this benefit with effect from 1.1.1992, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?
Reg: Q. No. (i) :
Article 16 like Article 14 permits classification. However, according to the traditional view, the classification should be based on an intelligible, differentia which must have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Now, if a new dimension has been added to this view. It has been held that every action, be it a legislative or administrative, should be just and fair. It should mot be arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, it is passible for the Government to classify the employees on the basis of nature of duties, extent of responsibility and qualifications etc. The Government can take these factors into consideration while deciding about the revision of pay scales. If the Government decided to grant higher scales of pay to the persons discharging more onerous duties than others or to persons whose jobs carry a higher responsibility, its action would be within the permissible parameters of Articles 14 and 16. It can equally well be said that those who possess higher qualifications can be granted higher scales of pay as compared to those who do not fulfil such qualifications. However, in a case, where all persons are. similarly situated, it would not be possible for the Government to treat the employees differently in the matter of revision of scales of pay.
In this context, it is true that even the economic factor can be taken into consideration. A State may face financial crunch. The paucity of funds may compel it to delay the revision of scales of pay. If it does not have necessary funds, the courts shall not normally compel the employer to pay higher salaries to its employees. The action in such a situation may not be described as unfair, unjust or arbitrary. Thus, each case shall have to be examined on its own facts.
In the present case, the respondents claim that it is the “inherent administrative power of the Government” to grant scales of pay “from any date.” This statement made on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted in its entirety. The State cannot arbitrarily fix different dates for revision of scales of employees who are similarly situated. Unless good reasons are shown for a differential treatment, all employees who are similarly placed, shall normally be entitled to a parity of treatment. To illustrate, an employer may show that even though the pay scales of the employees of various Corporations have been revised but those in a particular corporation cannot be given these benefits on account of the peculiar financial situation prevailing therein. In such a case the action may be justified. However, unless a clear justification is shown, the action of the authority may suffer from the vice of discrimination and arbitrariness.
8. Accordingly, we answer the first question in the negative and hold that unless good reasons are shown, all employees who are similarly situated, have a right to be treated alike and that the employer does not have an inherent right to fix different dates regarding the grant of revised scales of pay.
Reg: Q. No. (ii) :
This brings us to the second question. Is it permissible for the State to grant the benefit of revised scales of pay to employees from different dates ?
10. To provide adequate means of livelihood is one of the cherished goals of the constitution. The State is under a duty to direct its policy towards securing ‘equal pay for equal work. It is a means of securing social justice in this Socialist Republic of ours. The inflating trend of economy results in spiraling of prices. The cost of living rises with the ever increasing rise of the price index. Consequently, pay Commissions are periodically constituted. If on consideration of the report of a Commissioner or any other body, the competent authority or the State Government decides to revise the scales of pay, then all the employees who are similarly situated, are entitled to be treated alike. If the pay scales of one set of employees are revised with effect from a particular date while others who are similarly situated, are given the same benefit with effect from a later date, the action of the concerned authority is liable to be questioned. Unless good grounds are shown, it is liable to be dubbed as arbitrary and discriminatory.
11. What is the position in the instant case ? Admittedly, the Junior Engineers working with the Corporation have been given the same scales of pay as have been sanctioned by the Government for other employees of that category in various other departments/organisations. However, the benefit has been given to them w.e.f. January 1, 1993, while others who are similarly situated have/been given the benefit with effect from a date which is a year prior in point of time. Why? No reason whatsoever has been indicated. No justification has been shown. In such a situation, the action cannot be sustained.
12. On behalf of the respondents, reference has been made to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S.K. Bishnoi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 1993(3) RSJ 444. The Division Bench decided a bunch of writ petitions. The petitioners therein “sought a mandate to the respondent-State to remove the anomalies in their pay scales with effect from January 1, 1986 instead of May 1, 1990 as ordered by it.” The Division Bench found that “the respondent allowed them (petitioners in these cases) the higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 keeping in view the nature of duties performed by them.” The Court had found that there was a ‘further revision’ of pay scales and not the removal of any anomalies. Consequently, petitions were dismissed. The factual and legal controversy in the present case is totally different. Consequently, the respondents can derive no advantage from this decision.
13. Accordingly, we answer the question posed at the outset in the affirmative and hold that the action of the respondents is discriminatory and arbitrary.
14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned action is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the revised scale of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. January 1, 1992. Consequential reliefs shall follow. The needful shall be done within three months. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.