JUDGMENT
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.
1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks direction to provide the pay scale to the post of Ranger Gr.-I at par with the pay scale of the post of Inspector in Police Department with all consequential benefits and in that regard a challenge has also been made to the order dated 15.01.2008 by which the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents.
2. The facts relevant to the present matter are that the petitioners is an association representing Ranger Gr.-I of the Forest Department. It is contended that post of Ranger Gr.-I falls under the Forest Subordinate Service Rules. Pursuant to the recommendation of the IVth Pay Commission, Ranger Gr.-I were given pay scale of 1640-2040 which now is the pay scale of 5,500-9000 in view of the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the post of Ranger Gr.I should have been given pay scale of 2000-3200 on the recommendation of the IVth Pay Commission and consequent pay scale of 6500-10500 on the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission. The ground to seek such benefit is that post of Ranger Gr.I in the Forest Department is having equivalence to he post of Inspector in the Police Department, therefore, anomaly in the pay scale so exist by giving different pay scale to Ranger Gr.-I in Forest Department and a Police Inspector in Police Department is arbitrary being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that even matter of grant of higher pay scale to Ranger Gr.I was recommended for removal of disparity by the Department itself. Even Pandey Committee made recommendation so as the Minister for Environment and Forest but none of the recommendation were then accepted by the State Government of Rajasthan rather the prayer made by the petitioner to claim parity was then turned down vide the impugned order dated 15.01.2008, whereas few State Government excepted the recommendations of Pandey Committee. According to the petitioner the impugned order dated 15.01.2008 does not take care of the fact that the two post i.e. the post of Ranger Gr.I and post of Police Inspector are having same educational qualification as well as duties, therefore, even on the ground of equal pay for equal work, the same pay was required to be given but then blindly applying the recommendation of IVth Pay Commission, Ranger Gr.-I has been given lesser pay scale than the Police Inspector. In that regard reference of Annex.1 has been given where comparison has been made by the Forest Department to show the equivalence of the posts in two department and same way even my attention was drawn regarding the recommendations made by the Forest Department in favour of the petitioner.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the document referred to support her contention. Perusal of Annex.1 shows that exercise undertaken therein is nothing but showing status of the post in two department without showing equivlalence of duties, qualification, mode of recruitment and responsibilities, etc. thus comparison has been made only by arranging different post of different department from higher to lower post.
4. So far as recommendation of Pandey Committee is concerned, pay scale of 2000 – 3200 is recommended on the ground that said pay scale has been given for the post of Inspector in Police department and Tehsildar in revenue department and mainly on that basis, said pay scale was recommended for the post of Ranger Grade I apart from this, showing duties of Ranger I to be hard. Firstly recommendation of the Committee cannot be enforced by a Court. Secondly, even it is not binding for the Government to except it in any case, rather it remains open for the Government to except it or not to except it. Thirdly, committee has not even considered as to what are the duties of a Tehsildar and of Inspector so as to make a comparison of their duties with ranger grade I other than giving statement of duties of Ranger only. In any case, recommendation of the Committee was not accepted by the Government by virtue of issuance of impugned order, wherein it is said that post of Ranger Gr.I of Forest Department is not at all comparable with the post of the Inspector in the Police Department. It has further been stated that merely on account of same educational qualification, equivalence of the pay scale can be demanded. Thus dealing with the issue entirely, the representation of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale contrary to what has been recommended by the IVth and Vth Pay Commission was turned down. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment given by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Dineshan KK . In the aforesaid case applying the principle of equal pay for equal work it was held that if there is apparent disparity and anomaly in the pay scale, yet no corrective step is taken then the Court can direct for providing parity of pay scale. Question involved therein was in regard to the post of Radio Mechanic in Assam Rifles where parity of the pay scale was claimed with other Central Paramilitary Forces having higher pay scale of the same post. Therein even the Central Government have admitted that there was apparent disparity in the pay scale of the Radio Mechanic and looking to admission of the Central Government, the necessary order was passed for grant of parity. The case in hand is not same as has been decided in the aforesaid case because here Government has very categorically stated in the impugned order that two posts i.e. the post of Ranger Gr.-I is not at all comparable with the post of Inspector in Police Department and reasons have otherwise been given therefore the judgment in the case of Union of India does not provide any assistance to the petitioner. It is otherwise a settled preposition of law that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 should not act as expert so as to recommend the pay scale different than what has been recommended by the Pay Commission. In the recent judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that exercise of such jurisdiction by the High Court in ordinary course is not proper. It is not even a case where two posts are having same work so as to apply principle of equal pay for equal work.
5. In the case reported in 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 153 Secretary, Finance Department and Ors. v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Ors. Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other departments etc. we have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broad banding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalization of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties of responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer’s capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these mattes in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court’s interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
6. In the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat , the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the case of Personal Assistants, who were given pay of Rs. 1640 – 2900 by the State, whereas Central Government revised the pay scale for P.A’s. Working in Central Secretariat to be of Rs. 2000 – 3500. The High Court allowed the writ petition, but Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the Judgment of the High Court and held as under:
It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter, several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State Government. In the context of the complex nature of issues involved, the far-reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration of the State Government, courts have taken the view that ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the Government. The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the Government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the State Government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the Government to implement the same. As noted earlier, in the present case the High Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two sections of employees, one in the State Secretariat and the other in the Central Secretariat. It has also ignored the basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and executive instructions issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre.
7. In the aforesaid Judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court even considered the principle of equal pay for equal work.
8. In the case of Union of India v. Arun Jyoti reported in (2007) 7 SCC 472, Hon’ble Apex Court held that even the recommendations of Pay Commission are subject acceptance or rejection by the Government and Court cannot proceed on the basis of recommendations alone. In para 16, it was held as under:
We had recently held in K.S. Krishnaswamy v. Union of India that the recommendations of Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection. Speaking for the Bench, one of us (H.K.Sema, J.) stated : (SCC P.220, para 17)
It is well-settled principle of law that recommendations of the Pay Commission are subject to the acceptance/rejection with modifications of the appropriate Government.
So, unless the Government has accepted the recommendation to merge the cadres, the court cannot proceed on the basis of the recommendation alone or to direct the Government to accept the recommendation. In this context we have also to take note of the decisions of this Court in State of W.B. v. Deb Kumar Mukherjee that the recommendations of pay scales are not open to judicial review and the one in State of UP v. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh to the effect that the evaluation of typists for the purposes of pay scales must be left to the expert body. The role of the Pay Commission and that of the court has also been dealt with by the decision of this Court in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India and M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Assn. v. State of M.P. In the latter decision it was held by this Court that Pay Commissions are constituted for evaluating duties and functions of the employees and the nature thereof vis-a-vis the educational qualifications therefor. Although the Pay Commission is an expert body, the State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept its recommendations.
9. Look at the present case does not show that the post of Tehsildar in Revenue department and post of Inspector in Police department are having same duties as of the post of Ranger Grade I in Forest department, rather three posts are not comparable so as to give direction for grant of higher pay scale to the Ranger Grade I as otherwise prayed in the petition. Even committee report can not be made binding on the State Government.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court having limited jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of pay scale, I do not find this to be a case where this Court can direct grant of pay scale to Ranger G.I at par with the post of. Inspector Police Department or Tehsildar in Revenue Department. The impugned order passed by the respondent thus cannot be set aside hence writ petitioner is dismissed accordingly.