STATE OF PUNJABversusPARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS.

                          STATE OF PUNJAB                                    A
                                  v.
                       PARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS.

                            OCTOBER 16, 2003

              [BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]
                                                                             B

       Service Law :

          Parity in pay scales-Art-cum-Lattering Expert, Production Artist
    etc.-Claiming pay scales equivalent to Assistants in A and B class Offices C
    Both the categories were placed in the same scale pursuant to Third Punjab
    Pay Commission Report-Later, Government sanctioning higher pay scale
    to Assistants in 'A ' and 'B' Class Offices, but not to Art-cum-Lattering
    Experts etc.-Petition by tatters-High Court, relying on its earlier
    decision*, granting parity-Appeal by State-Held, since the decision on D
· • which High Court relied on has been reversed, order of High Court set
    aside-Matter remanded to High Court-It would be desirable and/air in
    equity that other aspects of the matter may be considered and examined
    by the High Court, namely recommendations of the Third Punjab Pay
    Commission for same pay scale for the Assistants and the subsequent
    notifications issued by the Government revising the pay scales.            E
       *Haryana Staie Biologists Associations v. State ofHaryana and Anr.,
  (1994) 2 PLR 389, stands overruled.

       State of UP. & Ors. v. UP. Sales Tax Officers Grade-II Association,   F
  [2003) 6 sec 250, referred to.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2092 of
  1997 .

     . From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.96 of the Punjab and G
  Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 10631 of 1995.

                                    WITH

       C.A. No. 2093 of 1997.                                                H
                                     887
      888                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
 A         Ajay Bansal, Addi. Adv. General, Punjab, S.K. Das for R.S. Suri, for
      the Appellant.

            Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar for the Respondents.

            The Order of the Court was delivered :
 B
           The State of Punjab has preferred these appeals against the Judgments
      and orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court by whi<;h the respondents
      were held to be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from
      1.1.1986, which scale was made admissible earlier to the Assistants
 C    working in Class A and Class B offices.

            The petitioners before the High Court, who are respondents in these
      appeals, form a category of officials consisting of Art-cum-Lattering
      Expert, Production Artist, Art Assistant, Layout Artist, Painting Artist and
, D   Artist-cum-Photographer. According to a chart furnished by the learned
      counsel for the State, it is evident that the scale of pay of these officials
      working under different designations indicate~ above, had been in the pay
      scale of Rs. 250-550. Later on with effect from l.1.1978, the Production
      Artists and Painting Artists were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 570-1080
 E    whereas the remaining four posts were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 620-
      1200. In the Third Punjab Pay Commission Report they were all placed
      in one scale, namely, Rs. 1500-2640 with effect from l.1.1986.

            As against the above, the case of the respondents before the High
 F Court was that the Assistants working in Class A and Class B offices have
      also been in the pay-scale of Rs. 600-1120 and Rs. 570-1080. They had
      also been recommended the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 by the Pay
      Commission. But later on, the State Government by notification issued on
      June 15, 1990, made the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 admissible to the
      aforesaid Assistants but the same treatment was not meted out to the
 G    respondents by the Government though the Third Punjab Pay Commission
      had recommended one pay-scale for both. From the chart furnished by the
      learned counsel for the State of Punjab it appears that in 1968 when the
      scale of pay of Artist-cum-Photographers etc. had been in the scale ofRs.
      250-550 the Assistants had been in the pay-scale of Rs. 160-400. Later on
 H    they were brought in almost equal pay-scales, namely, Rs. 600-1120 and
                        STATEv. PARAMJEET                            889

Rs. 570-1080. In the Third Punjab Pay Commission, however, they had A
been recommended the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2640 like the respondents.
The High Court considering the above position and relying upon a decision
of the same fiigh Court in the case of Haryana State Biologists Association •
v. State of Haryana and Anr., (1994) 2 PLR 389, holding that once the
parity in the pay-scales of two cadres of employees is granted the same B
cannot be withdrawn or disturbed depriving one class or category of the
same pay. The High Court thus found that a conscious decision was taken
and the respondents who were peitioners in the High Court could not be
deprived of the scale of pay of Rs. 1800-3200 which was made admissible
to the Assistants who were also recommended the same scale of pay by C
the Third Punjab Pay Commission as for the respondents.

      The State has come up in appeal against the decisions of the High
Court, mainly, on the ground that the decision in the case of Haryana State
Biologists Association (supra) has been later on reversed by this Court. A
copy of the Judgment of this Court in the above case has also been annexed D
by the respondents. It may be indicated that the above noted case dealt with
the parity in the pay-scale of Biologists and the Medical Officers and in
that context the question was considered. Yet another fact which was taken
into account in that case was that the Medical Officers were also drawing
Non Practising Allowance though at some stage the scale of pay of the E
Biologists and the Medical Officers happened to be the same. This Court
observed that there has not been parity at all times and that the Non
Practising Allowance was admissible to the Medical Officers over and
above the pay-scales admissible to them. Therefore, the same pay-scale
during certain period would not be a valid criteria to grant them the same F
scale of pay. The decision in the case of Haryana State Biologists
Association (supra) was, therefore, set aside.

     In so far as the case in hand is concerned we find that under para 8.9
of the Third Punjab Pay Commission the existing scales of pay were
converted and revised by way of general conversion. In that exercise of G
conversion of the existing pay-scales, the scales of pay of Rs. 570-1080,
Rs. 610-1100, Rs. 620-1200 and Rs. 680-1150 were all converted into Rs.
1500-2640. The respondents fell in this category and hence their scale of
pay was recommended to be revised as above. So far as the Assistants are
concerned, we find that their case has been dealt wi!h separately aiid in H
    890                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A that connection para 25.13 of the Third Pay Commission is relevant which
    says that keeping all relevant facts into consideration, the pay~scale of Rs.
    1500-2640 was recommended for Assistants. It is categorically mentioned
    that for reasons generally indicated in para 25.6, senior scale was not
    recommended for the category of Assistants. Para 25.6 particularly deals
B   with the pay-scale of Assistants and the reasons for not providing senior
    scale to them. However, despite and against the recommendations of the
    Pay Commission, in June 1990, the Assistants in the secretariat and in Class
    A and Class B offices have been given the pay-scales of Rs. 1800-3200.
    On behalf of the respondents it is .submitted that though they have not been
    pressing their case on the basis of their qualifications as Artists as they are
C   supposed to have different specialized qualifications of five years courses
    but in view of the nature of their duties and responsibilities, reasonably the
    respondents were also entitled to be placed in the same scale of pay as that
    of Assistants, if not higher.

D        So far as the appellants are concerned their case in the High Court
   had been that the Third Punjab Pay Commission had recommended a
   different pay-scale for the Assistants. The learned counsel for the respondents
   has vehemently urged that their definite case was that the Assistants were
   recommended higher pay-scale by the Third Punjab Pay Commission
E which is factually incorrect on the face of it. Rather on the other hand, the
   Pay Commission was categorical about the fact that senior sea.le was not
   to be made admissible to the Assistants. But despite that recommendation
  ·a different decision has been taken, without indicating the reason for taking
   that decision, placing the Assistants in the scale of pay of Rs. 1800-3200.
F It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the reason for providing
   higher scale of pay to the Assistants despite the recommendations of the
   Pay Commission to the contrary, was that the Assistants had resorted to
   the agitational course and had gone on strike for better pay-scales.
   However, we would not like to guess about the reason for issuing the
   notification by the Government except to mention the reason as indicated
G by the learned counsel for the respondents. But none could be indicated
   by the State counsel..

         It is again indicated that by means of yet another notification dated
    May 9, 1991, filed along with the rejoinder affidavit, that the Artist-cum-
H   Draftsmen in another department, who were earlier in the pay~scale of
                       STATE v. PARAMJEET                            891

Rs. 620-1200 their pay scale was revised to Rs. 1800-3200 and the A
Draftsmen in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 their scale was also revised
similarly. But it was not done so in respect of the respondents working in
the department oflnformation and Public Relation. Reference to a decision
of this Court in State of UP. & Ors v. UP. Sales Tax Officers Grade-II
Association, [2003] 6 sec 250 has also been made on the question of B
recommendation of the Pay Commission and its acceptance and
implementation l;>y the State Government. It is also submitted that if the
State had not taken incorrect stand before the High Court that the Third   1




Pay Commission had recommended different pay-scale for the Assistants,
the High Court might have examined the matter taking into account other    C
material and questions as well.

      Since we have noted that the judgments of the High Court impugned
in these appeals are mainly based on the decision in the case of Haryana
State Biologists Association (supra) which has been reversed later by this
Court, the impugned Judgment has to be set aside. But it would be desirable D
and fair in equity that other aspects of the matter may be considered and
examined by the High Court, namely, the recommendations as made by
the Third Punjab Pay Commission, which of course recommended same
pay-scale for the Assistants and the subsequent notifications issued in June
1990 and September 1991 referred to above or any other further notification E
implementing or revising the pay-scales. It shall also examine the question
as to why it was not possible for the State to accede the request made by
the respondents for the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200 while it had provided ,
the said scale for the Assistants against the specific recommendations of
the Pay Commission.
                                                                           F
       In the result, the appeals are allowed and the orders passed by the
High Court are set aside. But we remand the matter to the High Court to
consider it afresh in the light of the observations made above. It will be
open for the parties to place all relevant material on record, including the
recommendations of the Pay Commission and the relevant notifications G
issued by the State Government. There shall, however, be no order as to
costs.

R.P.                                                   Appeals allowed.