- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.4.1995 (Annexure P-11) and also the subsequent order dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure P-12), whereby while removing the anomaly in the revision of pay-scale of the petitioners, it was not removed from the date when it was created i.e. 1.1.1986 but from 1.4.1995, by passing a non-speaking order. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, respondents filed their respective written statements.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were working as Accounts Clerks in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- plus Rs.50/- as special pay. This pay-scale came to be revised for all the similarly situated employees, working in different Boards and Corporations of the respondent-State, to Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Vide Annexure P-4, a Committee was constituted for considering the issue of revision of pay-scale of the Accounts Clerks. Consequently, the Committee considered the matter thoroughly and came to the conclusion in its meeting held on 9.12.1993 vide Annexure P-5, that the petitioners were entitled for revision of pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. However, respondent No.2 is stated to have suggested the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Thereafter, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation accorded its approval to the above-said revision of pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide their decision dated 17.3.1994 (Annexure P-8). He would next contend that surprisingly respondent No.2 vide impugned communication dated 24.4.1995 (Annexure P-11), decided to revise the pay-scale of Accounts Clerks from Rs.950- 1500/- plus Rs.50/- as special pay to Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f. 1.4.1995. Respondent-Corporation also did not put any resistance to the above-said decision of respondent No.2 and accordingly passed the consequential impugned order dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure P-12), thereby causing serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. He concluded by submitting that since action of the respondent-Corporation was arbitrary and discriminatory on the face of it, the impugned orders were not sustainable in law. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 1 RSJ 838 and order dated 24.7.2013 passed by this Court relying upon Ajmer Singh's case in CWP No.363 of 1995 (D.K.Gupta and others v. State of Haryana and others) and order dated 16.8.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.448 of 1994 (Prem Raj Giri and others v. The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another). Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present writ petition.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for State submits that the primary reason with respondent No.2 for granting the benefit of revision of pay-scale to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.1995 instead of 1.1.1986 was that respondent No.3 was not enjoying good financial health. He further submits that it is the prerogative of the employer to grant the revised pay-scale to the different categories of employees from different dates and there was nothing arbitrary at the hands of respondent No.2, while passing the impugned order. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case in hand, instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.;