Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board, … vs Jagjit Singh And Others on 5 April, 2021LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.04.2021
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala (now Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd.)
…Appellant
Vs.
Er. Jagjit Singh and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate,
for the respondents.
***
Ritu Bahri, J.
CM-3373-LPA-2019
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed
and delay of 81 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.
LPA-1516-2019
Present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment
dated 02.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby
petition (CWP No.4378 of 1996) filed by the petitioners (respondents
herein) has been allowed and direction has been given to the appellant to
grant the benefit of time bound pay scale, as per the scheme, which was
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:35 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -2-
implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with all consequential pecuniary benefits
along with interest @ 6% per annum.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant is not disputing that vide
order dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P-2), the appellant (erstwhile PSEB)
formulated a scheme to grant time bound promotional scales to its
employees w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Further, vide order dated 23.04.1990
(Annexure P-3), Junior Engineers, JE-II, who were in the pay scale of
Rs.1640-2925-3200 were granted the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 as first
time bound scale after completion of 9 years service and the pay scale of
Rs.2200-40-2400-60 and 2700-75-3000-100-4000-125-4250 as second time
bound scale after completion of 16 years of service. Relevant order dated
23.04.1990 (Annexure P-3) is reproduced as under:-
SCHEDULE-I
Sr. Name of Lowest Pay scales First time 2nd time Remarks
No. Induction post Bound Scale Bound Scale
through direct to be to be
recruitment allowed allowed
after 9 years after 16
of service years of
service
Assistant Linesman 950-1800 1200-2200 1640-3200
(with start of
1 Rs.1000/-)
Linesman 1200-2200 1640-3200 1800-3600
(Promotional JE Ist Scale
/devised
Promotional
2 Scale
JE-II (Electrical) 1640-2925- 1800-3200 2200-40-2400-60-2700-75-
3200 3000-100-4000-125-4250
3
JE-II (Civil) 1640-2925- 1800-3200 These 2 times higher scales
3200 will be allowed if JE-II
qualifies the DAE for
Technical Subordinate
otherwise he will be placed
in the second time bound
4 scale of Rs.2100-3700
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -3-
Petitioners (respondents herein) were granted the pay scale of
Rs.1800-3200 as first time bound scale after completion of 9 years (which is
the scale of the post of JE-1) and Rs.2200-40-2400-60-2700-75-3000-100-
4000-125-4250 (which is the scale of Assistant Engineers) after 16 years of
service. With regard to the second time bound scale, which was to be
allowed after 16 years of service, an amendment was made vide order dated
28.02.1994 (Annexure P-5), whereby scale of Assistant Engineer was
granted to the JE-II (after completing 16 years). Relevant extract of the
order is being reproduced as under:-
“……The Punjab State Electricity Board is pleased to order the grant of
scale of Assistant Engineer i.e. Rs.2200/4250 (2200-50-2480-60-2700-
3000-100-4000)-125-4250 without the initial start of Rs.2400 to the
categories of J.Es (DAE qualified) eligible for the post of AE under the
PSEB Engineers (Elect./Civil) Regulations, 1965
(Electrical/Civil/Testing/Communication/Installation & Sub Station)
on completion of 16 years service from the date of joining on the
induction post of JE-II in terms of O/O No.197/FIN/PRC-1988 dated
23.04.1990…….”
Since the object of giving benefit of promotional scales, as per
scheme dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P-2), was to remove the stagnation in
the case of JEs, who did not get promotion, the first scale granted to JEs, as
per Schedule-I, was of Rs.1800-3200 after 09 years of service. They were
to be granted the 2nd time bound scale after 16 years, which was of the post
of Assistant Engineer and while removing this anomaly vide letter/order
dated 28.02.1994 (Annexure P-5), it has been specifically stated that the
scale of the Assistant Engineers has been granted. A perusal of the orders
dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P-2) and 28.02.1994 (Annexure P-5) clarifies
that while granting the scale of Assistant Engineer, there was a jump of
Rs.300/- i.e. from Rs.2700/- to Rs.3000/- and this was not reflected in
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -4-
Schedule-1, as referred to above. This was an anomaly, which was removed
vide order dated 28.02.1994 (Annexure P-5) and the learned Single Judge
has rightly allowed the petition that this was an anomaly, which was
removed by the department itself and it has to be implemented w.e.f.
01.01.1986.
The only ground taken by the appellant was that before revising
the scales vide order dated 28.02.1994 (Annexure P-5), there was an
agreement between the Council of the Junior Engineers and the appellant-
board that the arrears would be given to them w.e.f. 1993. However, no
such agreement has been placed on record. It is not the case of the appellant
that as per scheme/order dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P-2), petitioner-
respondents were not entitled to the scale of the posts of Assistant
Engineers. However, while passing the order dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure
P-2), there was a mistake in recording the scales of the Assistant Engineers.
In the said order, there was no mention regarding jump of Rs.300/- i.e. from
Rs.2700/- to Rs.3000/- and this anomaly was removed vide order dated
28.02.1994 (Annexure P-5). Hence, for all intents and purposes, petitioner-
respondents were given their rightful claim of the pay scales at par with the
Assistant Engineers after completing 16 years of service as per original
scheme dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P-2). No written agreement has been
placed on record by the appellant along with the additional affidavit to show
that the Council of Junior Engineers had agreed to forego their arrears.
They have placed on record only copy of the office noting. But, the office
noting cannot be taken to be an agreement. Moreover, this is not a case of
modifying the pay scales, but it is a case of removing the anomaly.
Reference, at this stage, can be made to a judgment passed by Division
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -5-
Bench of this Court in State of Haryana and others vs. K.L. Mittal and
others, 2013 (2) SCT 110, wherein it has been observed as under:-
“12. After considering the matter in detail including the arguments of
counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that present case was
not a case of anomaly. Instead a conscious decision was taken to give
better pay scale to the respondents herein. Insofar as pre-revised scale
of Rs.200-450 is concerned, revised scale thereof was Rs.525-1050/-
which was given to the respondents with effect from 1.4.1979.
However, they were demanding better treatment on the ground that
their pay scale and that of degree-holders should be the same. Though
this request was partially accepted earlier by revising the pay scale to
Rs.600-1100/- with effect from 1.2.1981, thereafter on their repeated
demands, the further revision in the pay scale of Rs.700-1250/- was
given.
13. The word “Anomaly” has been defined in Webster’s New
Twentieth Century Dictionary to mean “abnormality; irregularity;
deviation from the regular arrangement, general rule or the usual
method”. Since this definition is not precise with reference to the pay
scales and pay revision, it is pertinent to draw up a reasonable
definition of what would constitute of an anomaly. It has been
discussed by this Court in S.K. Bishnoi (supra) as a situation “where
there is a loss of emoluments in the case of an employee on account of
revision of pay scales.” In this context, we agree with the legal position
stated in the orders dated 23.4.2004 passed by the Government of
Haryana as to what would constitute ‘anomaly’ and the five instances
given therein which already have been extracted above.
14. What is to be borne in mind is that the issues involved in pay
revision matters are extremely complex. It has been repeatedly held by
the apex court that these can be best examined and considered by the
expert bodies, such as, Pay Commission and issues, such as, equality
of work, nature of duties and responsibility of various posts require in-
epth analysis. This principle is ingrained in State of U.P. vs. J.P.
Chaurasia (1989) 1 SCC 121 and exemplified further in the case of
Secretary, Finance Department vs. West Bengal Registration
Services Association, AIR 1992 SC 1203. Even when the expert
committee like Pay Commission goes through this exercise and gives
its recommendations, while implementing those recommendations and
giving fitment to various categories of employees, anomalies do take
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -6-
place. The State Government had constituted pay anomaly commission
in the present case. Consequently, while recommending the pay scale
of Rs.700-1250/-, the Pay Commission did not observe any specific
anomaly. On the other hand, it found that the diploma engineers i.e.
Junior Engineers holding diploma should be brought at par with the
degree-holders and this was the reason for according further revision
in the pay scale. Once these significant aspects of the matter are looked
into, we find that it was not a case of removal of anomaly, but grant of
further revision and, therefore, the State had the prerogative to fix the
date of 1.7.1985 from which this revision was to take effect.”
In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that when an
anomaly in revision of pay scale is removed, it has to be taken from the
same date when the pay revision takes place and not from the date when
decision is taken to remove the anomaly at a later date. In para 6 of the
judgment, it has been held as under:-
“6. Whenever revision in pay scales takes place, while taking such
a decision, the Government fixes the date from which the pay revision
is to take place. While giving effect to the recommendations of the Pay
Commissions, as accepted by the Government, many times anomalies
also arise. It is also a practice/procedure adopted by the Government to
appoint anomaly committees to look into the purported anomalies
which are pointed out. Exercise which is done by the anomaly
committee is to find out whether there is actually an anomaly in the
implementation of the pay scale of a particular category. If it is so, the
anomaly committee recommends giving of appropriate pay scale by
removing the anomaly. Once anomaly is accepted and decision is
taken to remove the same, it has to be from the same date when the
pay revision takes place and not from the date when decision is taken
to remove the anomaly at a later date. There can also be a situation
when the pay was rightly revised corresponding to the pre revised pay
scale, but on consideration of various other factors and the
recommendations of anomaly committee or some other expert
committee, the Government takes the decision to accord better pay
scale for which justification is found for certain other reasons. In this
situation, which is not a case of removal of anomalies, further revision
can take place from a later date and such a date can be fixed by the
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -7-
Government which may not necessarily be a date on which general
revision of pay scale had taken place. The afore-stated principle finds
enunciation in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Gopaldas, 1995(3)
RSJ 24 in the following words:
“7. The Rules providing for the revised pay-scales were made by
the State Government as a result of the recommendation of the
Pay Commission which was headed by Mr. B. P. Beri, a former
Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. In the process of
consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Commission
and its implementation, the likelihood of various anomalies and
omissions cannot be ruled out. An Anomalies Committee is
normally appointed to straighten the discrepancies and deal with
the omissions which might come to the notice of the
Government after the initial process of pay revision. This was
precisely what was done by the State of Rajasthan by issuing the
fourteen notifications relating to different departments
whereunder the revised payscales, which could not be included
under the Rules, were provided and enforced. So far as the
notification dated February 23, 1985 relating to the UDCs of
subordinate office is concerned, it was not with a view to remove
any anomaly or to make any provision for a category which was
left out of the Rules. It was a notification issued as a result of the
acceptance of the demand of the UDCs of the subordinate offices
for grant of higher payscale which was given to their
counterparts in the Secretariat. The High Court failed to
appreciate that the factual basis for issuing the notification dated
January 23, 1985 and the fourteen notifications relied upon by
the High Court was entirely different. No fault could be found
with the notification dated January 23, 1985 and the State
Government was justified in granting revised S-10 to the
respondent and other UDCs of subordinate offices with effect
from February 1, 1985.”
As per the above said judgment, arrears can only be restricted
if, it is a case of further revision in the pay scales or on the recommendation
of the Anomaly Committee or some other expert committee, the
Government takes a decision to grant better pay scale for some other
reasons.
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -8-
In The Punjab State Co-Operative Agricultural Development
Bank Ltd. vs. Punjab State Co-Operative Agricultural Development Bank
Pensioner’s Association & others, 2009 (2) SCT 284, the Division Bench
of this Court was considering a case of revision of pay scale. It was held
that once there is anomaly in the pay scales, benefits are to be paid from the
date of removal of anomaly and no artificial and arbitrary date can be fixed
in this regard. In Jagroop Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2001 (3) SCT 124,
the Division Bench of this Court was considering a case, where the
petitioner was appointed as Water Pump Operator w.e.f. 21.10.1985 on
work charge basis. He was matriculate with ITI (two years diploma in motor
mechanic), which he passed in the year 1988. The pay scales were revised
w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and petitioner’s (therein) cadre was put in the pay scale of
Rs.950-1500. Subsequently, the scale of technical posts, which were
carrying minimum educational qualification as Matriculate and diploma in
ITI or ITI certificate/polytechnic was further revised in the pay scale of
Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 01.05.1990. Grievance of the petitioner (therein) was
that the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was required to take effect from
01.01.1986 when the revised pay scales of the employees were given effect
to and not to a subsequent date i.e. 01.05.1990. Since, petitioner had the
qualification of Matric with ITI certificate, he was held entitled to the
revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986. In para 06 of the judgment, it was
held as under:-
“6. A mere perusal of the modification of the pay scales, shown
above, indicates that the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 has been revised to
Rs.1200-2040 in case of technical posts carrying the qualification of
matric with I.T.I. Certificate/Polytechnic whereas for the technical
posts of which the minimum qualification is ITI certificate/Diploma
from Polytechnic without insistence on Matric, pay scale has been
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -9-
modified to Rs.950-1400. It is conceded by the respondents that the
petitioner has the qualification of Matric with ITI certificate and he has
been extended the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs.1200-2040,
however, w.e.f. 01.05.1990 and not from 01.01.1986. In the
circumstances, when the respondents by the impugned order only
modified the pay scale earlier granted w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the
modification has to relate to the same date and not to a subsequent
date.”
Further, reference can be made to a judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Gurmail Singh Dahdli and others vs. Union of India and
others, 2008 (3) SCT 234, whereby in the case of retirees, after removing
anomaly, the benefit of removal of pay scale was granted w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
It was held that the financial constraints cannot be made basis to deny them
the arrears. The cut off date fixed while removing the anomaly was quashed.
In paras 11 and 12, it was observed as under:-
“11. Though financial constraint is a valid criteria for fixing cut off
date for grant of benefits but in the present case, neither the
respondents had given any data in respect of financial constraints nor
such financial constraints can be relevant when anomaly in the
pensionary benefit is sought to be removed. If all other retirees of
Government of India have got the benefit of revised pension then why
the lowest rank of Armed Forces have been deprived the benefit of
revised pension. Since anomaly is sought to be removed in pursuance
of the recommendations of the Group of Ministers, PBOR would be
entitled to revised pension from the date other employees of the
Central Government have got the revised pensionary benefits. The plea
of financial constraints has been raised in respect of lowest paid
employees of the Armed Forces, when all other categories of
employees including services have been given the benefit. Such
discriminatory treatment is wholly arbitrary.
12. In Joginder Singh Saini’s case (supra), the Court held that
having accepted the factum of anomaly and having taken decision to
remove the same, the Government cannot arbitrarily fix the date with
effect from which the benefit of revised pay scale is to be given to the
petitioners. In Harwinder Singh’s case (supra), the service of the
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -10-
petitioner was not regularised though 13 other persons were given the
benefit. It was found that once an approval has been sought, the same
will relate back to the date of the original decision. If it is not so, the
action of the respondents would result in invidious discrimination. In
Jai Narayan Jakhar’s case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court
held to the following effect:-
” Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
opinion that the stand of the respondents that the petitioner is not
entitled to the benefit of removal of anomaly in the Pay
Commission is wholly unjustified. It was during the
implementation of 5th Pay Commission report, it was found by
the respondents that there is anomaly in the pay scales. Once the
anomaly in the pay scales is found and sought to be removed
then it has to be removed from the implementation of the
recommendation of the Pay Commission i.e. 01.01.1996. There
is no explanation as to why the said anomaly is sought to be
removed from 10.10.1997. In the absence of any explanation of
removal of anomaly from 10.10.1997, we do not find the action
of the respondents fixing such date as justified. Consequently,
we hold that the petitioner is entitled to the revised pay scale of
Rs.5220-140-8140/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thus the petitioner shall
be entitled to the retiral benefits on the said pay scale”.
In the facts of the present case, there was anomaly while
granting the benefit of time bound promotional scales to the petitioners, as
there was no mention with regard to the jump of Rs.300/- i.e. from
Rs.2700/- to Rs.3000/- and this anomaly was removed vide order dated
28.02.1994 (Annexure P-5). Accordingly, the petitioner-respondents were
rightly given the pay scales at par with the Assistant Engineers after
completing 16 years of service as per original scheme dated 23.04.1990
(Annexure P-2). Furthermore, no agreement has been placed on record by
the appellant to show that the Council of Junior Engineers had forgone their
claim of getting the pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Hence, keeping in view
the above discussion, no ground is made out to interfere in the judgment
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
LPA No.1516 of 2019 (O&M) -11-
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
No merits.
Dismissed. (RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE
(ARCHANA PURI)
05.04.2021 JUDGE
ajp
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 04-06-2021 20:28:36 :::
Comments