- (1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent filed by the Haryana Financial Corporation through its officer is directed against the judgement dated 26.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that once the pay scales concerning the post of the Legal Assistant working in the Corporation are equated to that of Assistant District Attorney, the Law Officer to that of Deputy District Attorney and the Deputy Senior Manager (Law) is equated with that of District Attorney in the year 1979, then there was no escape from the conclusion that for the revision of pay scale granted LPA No. 1311 of 2011 to the equated post by the Government in 1988 would also ensure to the benefit of the Legal Assistant Law Officer and the Deputy Senior Manager (Law) who have been working in the Corporation. It is appropriate to notice that the learned Single Judge has interpreted the provisions of Section 39 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for brevity '1951 Act') to conclude that the Corporation is not bound by the direction issued by the respondent-State of Haryana. The pay scales of the writ petitioners-respondents were equated by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its meeting held on 30.03.1979 (Annexure P-1) and then no approval of the Government was considered necessary. Accordingly, the pay scales of all the Law Officers [Legal Assistant, Law Officer and Deputy Senior Manager (Law)] working in the Corporation were equated with those of the Law Officers working with the Government. The orders were implemented as is evident from the perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 15.10.1979 (Annexure P-2) and the Office Order No. 148 dated 28.02.1980 (Annexure P-3). Even in respect of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the same was given on the same pattern and the approval by the State Government was then duly accorded. However, there was further revision in the pay scales of the Law Officers in 1988 working with the State Government which resulted in the demands of revision of their pay scales by the Law Officers working in the Corporation so that the pay scales are brought at par. In that regard, a representation was made by one Shri Baljit Issar, Legal Assistant, working in the Corporation which has been rejected vide order dated 28.09.1989. The learned Single Judge has rejected the LPA No. 1311 of 2011 contention raised by the appellant as well as the respondent-State of Haryana holding that under Section 39 of the 1951 Act the State Government could issue instructions to the Corporation only with respect to the financial business being transacted by the Corporation. It has also been held that in the matter relating to revision of pay scales of the employees of the Corporation, the State Government has no right to interfere as the Corporation is an independent body. The view of the learned Single Judge emerges from the perusal of paras No. 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the impugned judgement which reads as under:- "16. The 1st respondent has issued an instruction to all the heads of departments of Haryana with respect to the revision of pay scales of employees of Marketing Boards/Marketing Committees and other Public Sector Undertakings specifically instructing them to send all proposals for revision of pay scales to the Financial Department for clearance. 17. Under Section 39 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the State Government can issue an instruction to the Financial Corporation only with respect to the financial business being transacted by the Financial Corporation. That is the reason why it has been specifically enumerated under Section 39 of the Act that any instruction that is flowed from the State Government on financial matters shall be preceded by an advice given by the Development Bank. The "Development Bank" as defined under Section 2(aa) means the Industrial Development Bank of India. The Industrial Development Bank of India would have nothing to do with the revision of pay scales of the employees of the Financial Corporation. It is concerned with the strategies to be adopted by the Financial Corporation with regard to its financial business LPA No. 1311 of 2011 transactions. Therefore, a matter relating to revision of pay of the employees of the Financial Corporation cannot be construed as a policy decision which requires the guidance of the State Government after obtaining an advice from the Industrial Development Bank of India. 18. The Haryana Financial Corporation is an independent body which manages its affairs in terms of Section 9 of the Act. The pay structure of the employees and their service conditions are regulated by the State Financial Corporation invoking its power under Section 23 of the said Act. The State Government has noting to do with the regulation of the pay of the employees of the Financial Corporation or the revision of pay of its employees. 19. It appears that the State Government has unnecessarily poked its nose into the affairs of the Haryana Financial Corporation with respect to the revision of pay of its employees. The 1st respondent has no authority under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to instruct the Haryana Financial Corporation with respect to the revision of pay of its employees."
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Corporation is bound by the direction issued by the State Government. However, we asked the learned counsel that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, is there any possibility of declining the relief of equivalent pay scale to the Law Officers working in the Corporation. Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the pay scales concerning the Law Officers working in the Corporation could be varied if there was a reorganisation of the LPA No. 1311 of 2011 department resulting in enactment of the new Rules and defining of their duties afresh.;