- (1.) Civil Writ Petition No. 6226 of 1986 Dr. Sukhdev Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and Anr., was disposed of on 2.6.1989, which was partly allowed and necessary directions were given. One of the reliefs was not allowed. The relief claimed was as under :- "(ii) for the grant of pay scales equivalent to the pay scales of Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons w.e.f. 1.1.1978 when the pay scales were revised on the recommendations of the IInd Pay Commission." The aforesaid relief was claimed by the petitioners who were working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. The case set up was that the pay scales of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were equated to the pay scales of Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons by the Government. The claim was contested by the State of Punjab inter alia alleging that there was no order of the Government equating the pay scales of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons with that of the Medical Officers. Since no order of the Government equating the pay scales of the aforesaid two services was produced, the relief was declined. In the Review Application again it was asserted that there was such an order passed by the Government. Conflicting replies were filed to the review application. At one stage, it was admitted that there was such an order, however, copy of the order was not being produced. Subsequently, the stand taken was that there was no such order. The petitioners succeeded in tracing out the order on the file of the Finance Department and then moved an application for getting the aforesaid file, when notice of the application was given to the State. Privilege as claimed regarding the office notings on the aforesaid file. There was no specific denial of existence of such an order. The relevant file was produced which was perused and the order passed by the Finance Minister was noticed in the file, translation of which was reproduced in order dated 27.8.1978. The office has prepared a note on November 7, 1978 which was considered by the Finance Secretary, who prepared his own report on November 23, 1978 wherein specific mention was made to para 2 of the office note of November 27, 1978 which related to the grant of grade of 400-1100 to the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. Then para 2 of the note was submitted to the Finance Minister for sanction and the Finance Minister approved the same on November 24, 1978. The relevant extract of para 2 of the aforesaid note while translated read as under :- "The Agricultural Minister has stated that in this respect Chief Minister had already assured to the deputationists of the concerned employees that they would be given the same grade which at present was being given to the PCMS Class II doctors i.e. 400-1100 as the Government was bound by its assurance, therefore, the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons be given grade of 400-30/40-1100. Approved."
(2.) Since the order of the Government now has been brought on the record as reproduced above, no manner of doubt is left that the pay scales of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were equated to the pay scales of PCMS Class II doctors and this was done on the representation of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. Since the pay scales were equated as aforesaid, subsequently when the pay scales were revised, there could not be any discrimination in the pay scales of the aforesaid two services. The Medical Officer and Dental Surgeons were granted the pay scale of 940-1850, their old pay scale being 400-1100 whereas the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who were also getting 400-1100 pay scale were granted pay scale of 850-1700 with effect from January 1, 1978. This discrimination in the matter of fixing the pay scales of these two services could not be made in view of the decision of this Court in Kirpal Jeet v. The State of Punjab,1987 4 SLR 594. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to this relief also which was earlier declined as copy of the order of the Government equating the pay scales of these two services was not produced.
(3.) When replies to the writ petitions are required to be submitted by responsible Officers of the State, it is expected that they would disclose the facts clearly, correctly and honestly and not to conceal the same. In the correspondence which was in the file maintained by the office of Animal Husbandry, there was a reference to such an order passed by the Government equating the pay scales of the two services. However, when replies were filed by the Secretary/Joint Secretary to Government Punjab, Animal Husbandry Department, copy of the aforesaid order was not produced. If at that stage, an enquiry had been made from the Finance Department, who had issued order allowing pay scale of 400-1100 to the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, copy of the order of the Finance Minister on the basis of which the pay scale was issued, could have been obtained and filed in Court. The Government having failed to do so, when persisted by a direction to the Finance Department, to produce the file, a privilege was sought to be claimed. Legally speaking, no privilege to the order passed by the Minister could be claimed. Privilege could only be claimed regarding office notings to protect the Officers of the State from giving independent opinion on the matters involving the State. The intention of the Secretaries of the Department of Finance and Animal Husbandry to keep the order of the Finance Minister aforesaid in concealment from the Court is not at all commendable. The way in which the writ petition and the Review Application has been prosecuted on behalf of the Finance Minister of Punjab, it has put the petitioners not only to great inconvenience but to great expenses. In the order dated June 2, 1989 it was specifically observed that if the Government decides to equate the pay scales of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons to that of the Medical Officer, the Government would allow same pay scale for both the posts. In spite of the aforesaid observation, the State did not allow the same pay scale to the petitioner in spite of the order of the Finance Minister as reproduced above existed on the file of the Finance Department.;