- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R.S Sharma And Ors. v. The State Of Punjab .
Judgment Summary — N.K. Sodhi, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners, R.S. Sharma and two others, are employees of the Transport Department of the State of Punjab serving as Legal Assistants (previously designated as Legal Advisors). They originally joined in the pay scale Rs. 350-650, were redesignated, and continued in service. The petitioners claim entitlement to the higher pay scale of Rs. 800-1400 with effect from the date when that scale was conferred upon their counterparts in the Department of Law and Legislation.
Key administrative and pay-history facts stated in the opinion:
- By notification dated 21.1.1969, the State equated the posts of Legal Assistants in the Transport Department with those in the Law and Legislative Department; both groups drew the same pay scale (Rs. 350-650) thereafter.
- The Second Pay Commission recommended a uniform scale of Rs. 750-1300 for Legal Assistants statewide; the State partly accepted recommendations and set a uniform scale of Rs. 700-1200 effective 1.1.1978 for Legal Assistants across departments.
- By letter dated 1.8.1983, the State revised the pay scale of Legal Assistants in the Department of Law and Legislation to Rs. 800-1400 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1978; the petitioners in the Transport Department were not given this higher scale and challenge that denial by this writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Legal Assistants in the Transport Department, whose posts were equated in 1969 with those in the Department of Law and Legislation, are entitled to the enhanced pay scale of Rs. 800-1400 with effect from 1.1.1978, the same date on which that scale was applied to the Law and Legislation Department.
- Whether the State's refusal (in 1983) to grant the higher scale to the petitioners, while granting it to their counterparts in the Law and Legislation Department, amounts to arbitrary or discriminatory treatment in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- Their posts were equated with Legal Assistants in the Law and Legislation Department as early as January 1969; consequently, they cannot be discriminated against later in pay scale assignments.
- They continued to draw the same pay as those counterparts up to 1983; when the Law and Legislation Department employees were given Rs. 800-1400 (retrospectively to 1.1.1978), the petitioners should also be similarly placed from that date.
- The nature of duties performed in the Transport Department is identical to, and in their view at least as onerous as, the duties performed by counterparts in the Law and Legislation Department; thus there is no justification for differential treatment.
Respondent-State's Arguments
- The qualifications and required experience for Legal Assistants differ between departments: the Law and Legislative Department directly recruits 1st Class law graduates, whereas the Transport Department does not require a 1st Class degree.
- The Legal Assistants in the Law and Legislative Department perform highly technical duties of vetting Notifications, Orders, Ordinances, Rules, Acts and Bills and advising on complicated legal matters for multiple Departments—duties said not to be performed by Transport Department Legal Assistants.
- The Third Pay Commission, after noting the technical nature of duties in the Law and Legislative Department, recommended a higher scale for those Legal Assistants (Rs. 1800-3200) and a lower but distinct scale for Legal Assistants in other departments (including Transport), which the State relies upon to justify differential pay.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K.K. Mehta v. State of Punjab, 1983 (3) S.L.R. 732 | When posts are equated, there is generally no reason to deny identical pay scales solely because qualifications or duties differ between incumbents. | The court cited and agreed with this view to support the proposition that once the State equated posts, denying the same pay later is unjustified. |
| Harsaran Singh v. State of Punjab (reported judgment by M.M. Punchhi, J.) | Affirmation of the approach that equivalently placed posts should receive same pay. | The court noted this authority as supporting equal pay treatment where posts are equated and duties/qualifications do not justify separation. |
| Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India, 1991 (2) S.L.R. 131 | Where posts in two organizations are of the same level and had the same pay scale historically, and there is no record of change in duties, there is no justification for fixing different pay scales subsequently. | The court quoted this decision to reinforce that absent any change in duties after equalisation, different pay fixation is unjustified; it applied that reasoning to hold the 1983 differential treatment invalid. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded through the following analytical steps, relying on the facts and authorities presented in the opinion:
- Equating of posts (1969): The court observed as an undisputed fact that the State equated the posts of Legal Assistants in the Transport Department with those in the Law and Legislative Department by notification dated 21.1.1969, and that both groups drew common pay scales thereafter.
- Pay revision history and uniformity (1978): The Second Pay Commission recommended a uniform scale for Legal Assistants across departments; the State implemented a common scale of Rs. 700-1200 effective 1.1.1978, which was drawn by Legal Assistants statewide, including the petitioners.
- 1983 differential adjustment and petitioners' grievance: By letter dated 1.8.1983, the State granted Legal Assistants in the Law and Legislative Department a higher scale (Rs. 800-1400) with retrospective effect to 1.1.1978 but denied that enhancement to the petitioners in the Transport Department. The petitioners challenged that denial as discriminatory.
- State's justification examined: The State argued that differences in qualifications and the technical nature of duties of Law and Legislative Department Legal Assistants justify the differential pay; the State also pointed to the Third Pay Commission's recommendations as supportive of higher pay for Law and Legislative Department staff.
- Rejection of State justification: The court held that once the State had equated the posts, it could not later justify differential pay by reference to qualifications or duties unless there had been a change in the duties performed subsequent to equalisation. The court found no suggestion by the State that duties had changed after equalisation to warrant divergent pay scales.
- Weight of pay commission recommendations: The court treated the Second Pay Commission's observation of similarity of duties (which had led to the earlier uniform scale) as material. The Third Pay Commission's recommendation for a higher scale for Law and Legislative Department Legal Assistants was held not to validate the discriminatory act of 1983, particularly because such recommendations are not binding on the State and because the posts had already been equated.
- Constitutional dimension: The court concluded that denying the higher grade to petitioners while granting it to equated counterparts in the Law and Legislative Department amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The court directed the State to revise the pay scales of the petitioners so as to equate them with those of the Legal Assistants in the Department of Law and Legislation with effect from 1.1.1978. The petitioners are entitled to arrears of pay and other benefits resulting from this revision, to be calculated and paid within three months from receipt of the order. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The petitioners will receive the higher pay scale (Rs. 800-1400) retrospectively from 1.1.1978 and be paid arrears and benefits within three months per the court's direction.
- Broader implications: The opinion applies established principles (as reflected in cited authorities) that when posts have been equated administratively, later differentiation in pay without a material change in duties or other justifying grounds is impermissible. The court did not purport to lay down a new precedent beyond applying these principles to the facts of this case.
Order pronouncing relief: "Petition allowed." (Final operative sentence recorded in the opinion.)
N.K Sodhi, J.:— R.S Sharma and two others who are working as Legal Assistants in the Transport Department of the State of Punjab claim through this petition the higher scale of pay of Rs. 800-1400 with effect from the date when this scale was given to their counterparts working in the Department of Law and Legislation.
2. The petitioners joined the Transport Departmentl as Legal Advisors quite a few years back in the pay scale of Rs. 350-650 but later they were redesignated as Legal Assistants and have been working since then.
3. The minimum qualifications for appointment as Legal Assistant in the Transport Department are that the candidate should be a Law Graduate with 3 years experience at the Bar or three years experience in any Law Office of a recognised institution whereas in the case of other Departments particularly the Law and Legislative Department, the requirement is that the candidate should be a 1st Class law graduate or should possess a Law degree with two years experience in any legal department. The petitioners in the Transport Department have been notified as ‘Government Pleaders’ in terms of clause (7) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and are also Law Officers under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 28 read with clause (c) of sub-section (1) section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and they appear before Civil Courts, Labour Tribunals, State Transport Appellate Tribunal and assist the inquiry officers in departmental proceedings besides appearing before Arbitrator. Most of these duties, according to the petitioners, are not performed by their counterparts in the Law and Legislative Department nor in other State Government Departments where the posts of Legal Assistants exist. State Government by a notification dated 21.1.1969 equated the posts of Legal Assistants in the Transport Department with the posts of Legal Assistants in the Law and Legislative Department and it is not disputed that these officials in these two Departments continued to draw the same scale of pay i.e Rs. 350-650. In the year 1979, the Second Pay Commission recommended the revision of pay scale of different categories of State Government employees including the Legal Assistants and recommended to the State Government a uniform pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 for Legal Assistants in all the departments throughout the State. The recommendation of the Pay Commission in the case of Legal Assistants was not accepted in toto but their scale of pay was, however, revised to Rs. 700-1200 with effect from 1.1.1978 the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were made effective. It is common case of the parties that the Legal Assistants throughout the State of Punjab including those in the Transport Department as well as in the Law and Legislative Department continued to draw the revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1200 thereafter. By a letter dated August 1, 1983, addressed by the State of Punjab, Department of Finance to the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, the State Government revised the pay scales of the Legal Assistants working in the Department of Law and Legislation and enhanced their scale of pay to Rs. 800-1400 w.e.f 1.1.1978, the date when the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission had become effective. The grouse of the petitioners is that their posts having been equated with their counterparts in the Department of Law and Legislation as far back as in January, 1969, they were also entitled to the higher scale of pay of Rs. 800-1400 w.e.f the same date. It Is for the redressal of this grievance that the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The stand of the writ petitioners has been controverted by the State and it is denied that the qualifications and experience prescribed for the post of Legal Assistants in the Department of Law and Legislation are same as those in the Transport Department. According to the respondent-State, the Legal Assistants in the Department of Law & Legislation who directly recruited are 1st Class Law Graduates whereas there is no such requirement in the case of the Transport Department and that the Legal Assistants in the former Department are performing duties of highly technical nature relating to vetting of Notifications, Orders, Ordinances, Rules, Acts and Bills and deal with cases where the said Department has to give information/advice in various complicated legal matters relating to different Departments of the State Government. The contention is that the duties performed by the Legal Assistants in the Transport Department are not at par with those of the Legal Assistants in the Department of Law and Legislation. According to the reply filed on behalf of the State, the 3rd Pay Commission in its report after noticing the highly technical nature of duties of the Legal Assistants in the Law and Legislative Department, recommended for them a higher scale of Rs. 1800-3200 whereas a slightly lower grade of Rs. 1640-2925 had been recommended for the Legal Assistants working in other departments including the Transport Department. On the basis of these averments, it is contended on behalf of the State that tv there being a qualitative difference in the nature of duties performed by the Legal Assistants of the Law and Legislative Department, they stand apart from the Legal Assistants working in other departments and the difference in the scales of their pay is thus justified.
5. The contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners is that their posts having been equated with their counterparts in Law and Legislative Department in the year 1969 they cannot be subsequently discriminated in the matter of pay scales. The argument is that even with effect from 1.1.1978 on the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission the State Government continued to give them the same scale of pay and it is only now for the first time in the year 1983 that the Government chose to give the higher scale of Rs. 800-1400 to the Legal Assistants in the Department of Law and Legislation and that too with effect from 1.1.1978 The petitioners also claim that the nature of duties performed by them in the Transport Department are identical if not more onerous and that there was no justification for the Government to enhance the pay scales of the Legal Assistants in the said Department but denying the same scale of pay to them in the Transport Department. I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the posts of the petitioners in the Transport Department were equated with those of their counterparts in the Department of Law and Legislation as early as in the year 1969 and they continued to draw the same scale of pay till the year 1983 when the Legal Assistants in the Department of Law and Legislation were given the higher grade of Rs. 800-1400 with effect from 1.1.1978 Once the State Government decided to equate the posts of Legal Assistants in the Transport Department with those in the Department of Law and Legislation, I fail to see how it could afterwards justifiably discriminate between the incumbents of the two departments in the matter of pay scales. The nature of work performed by the Legal Assistants in the two departments is almost identical though the petitioners contend that their duties both qualitatively and qualitatively are higher than those of their cunter parts in the Department of Law and Legislation. The Second Pay Commission in its recommendation had noticed the different types of duties performed by the Legal Assistants both in the Transport Department as well as in the Department of Law and Legislation and other departments where these posts exist and finding them almost similar recommended a uniform scale of pay for all the Legal Assistants throughout the State. It cannot be said that the Government while equating the posts of Legal Assistants in the two departments was not aware of the nature of duties performed by them.[On partly accepting the recommendations of the Pay Commission a uniform pay scale of Rs. 700-1200 was given to all the Legal Assistants in every department wherever these posts existed. Now when the pay scale of the Legal Assistants in the Department of Law and Legislation has been enhanced to Rs. 800-1400 with effect from 1.1.1978, in my opinion, the petitioners in the Transport Department are also entitled to this higher grade and with effect from the same date when this grade was given to the Legal Assistants in the Department of Law and Legislation. The action of the State in denying to the petitioners the higher grade of Rs. 800-1400 is both arbitrary and disciminatory and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In K.K Mehta v. State of Punjab, 1983 (3) S.L.R 732, S.P Goyal, J. took the view that as long as the posts for field Inspectors and Agricultural Inspectors in the Agriculture Department of the State of Punjab continued to be equated, there was hardly any reason to deny to one of them the same pay scales merely on the qualifications and duties of one being different to the other. I am in agreement with that view. In the present case, the educational qualifications and the nature of duties, as already observed earlier, are almost identical in the case of Legal Assistants in both the departments. The same view was taken by M.M Punchhi, J. in Harsaran Singh v. State of Punjab. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court as well in employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India, 1991 (2) S.L.R 131 while granting the same scales of pay to the employee of the Tannery and Footwear Corporation which their counterparts were drawing in the Cotton Corporation of India observed as under:—
“Here we are not concerned with the equation of posts because the posts falling in the above mentioned four categories of employees in the respondent-Corporation as well as the Cotton Corporation of India are of the same level and the employees working on these posts were having the same pay scales in 1970. There is nothing on the record to show that after 1970 there has been any change in the duties and functions of the persons holding these posts in the two Corporations which may justify fixation of different pay scales for these posts in the two Corporations.”
6. In the case before me, it is not even suggested by the respondent-State that there has been any change in the duties performed by the Legal Assistants of either of the two departments subsequent to their equalisation which could justify the fixation of different pay scales for them. The mere fact that the third pay commission had recommended a higher pay scale for the Legal Assistants in the department of Law and Justice, is hardly relevant because the posts had already been equated by the State Government and having equated them, it was in 1983 that they were again sought to be unequated creating a discrimination between the Legal Assistants of the two departments and it is this discrimination that has been challenged before me. A discriminatory act of 1983 cannot be defended on the basis of a recommendation made in 1984 more so when such a recommendation is not binding on the State Government.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-State directed to revise the pay scales of the petitioners so as to equate them with those of the Legal Assistants in the Department of Law and Legislation with effect from 1.1.1978 The petitioners shall also be entitled to the arrears of pay and other benefits which may accrue as a result of this revision. The State is further directed to calculate the arrears of pay and other benefits due to the petitioners and pay the same within three months from the date of receipt of this order. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
8. Petition allowed.
Alert