MADAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in the matter of fixation of pay scale of the petitioneer who is governed by General Insurance (Rationalisation & Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Amendment Scheme, 1985 (for short "amendment Scheme, 1985" ).
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, who is presently working as Assistant Administrative Officer with respondent-corporation, was initially appointed as Assistant/typist w. e. f. 22. 8. 1979 in the office of non-petitioner No. 2 viz. United India Insurance Copy. Ltd. , Jaipur. As on the said date the petitioner was senior-most in terms of the seniority as compared to the following four employees of the Corporation who were also appointed as Assistants on the dates noted against their respective names - S. No. Name of Person Presently working Date of appointment 1. Shri H. S. Meena, AAO Branch Office, Amba Bari, Jaipur. 29. 12. 79 2.Shri R. K. Nagpal, Senior Asstt. Branch Office, 1st, Jaipur 14. 6. 80 3. Shri R. K. Jain Stenographer D. C. II, Jaipur 16. 6. 80 4. Shri A. K. Sharma Senior Asstt. Branch Office, Dausa 24. 6. 80 Accordingly the abovenamed officials happened to be junior to the petitioner in terms of their respective dates of appointment. THE petitioner as well as the persons referred to above, were initially appointed in the same pay-scale of Rs. 175-10-235-15-295-20-395-EB-25-495-30-675. As a result of rationalisation and revision of pay scales and other service conditions of supervisory and ministerial staff of the Corporation in persuance of the Amendment Scheme of 1985 which became effective w. e. f. 15. 10. 1985, revised pay scales were introduced and made effective w. e. f 1. 4. 1983. THE petitioner as well as other employees were accordingly brought in the pay scale of Rs. 520-30-670-45-850-60-1210-75-1660. THE employees were given two options for acceptance of the revised pay scales by the Corporation, namely, they were required either to opt from 1. 4. 83 or from 15. 10. 85, as the case may be. THE petitioner opted revised pay scale of Rs. 520-1660 as referred to above w. e. f. 1. 4. 83. At the relevant time the basic pay of the petitioner in the old scale was Rs. 225/- p. m. whereas his juniors were getting Rs. 215/- p. m. as basic pay. THE Corporation had further guaranteed the minimum fitment benefit of Rs. 50/- to alll those employees who were falling in the category of the petitioner in terms of the revised pay scales as a result of which the Amendment Scheme of 1985 as referred to above. It has been further contended in the writ petition that the petitioner who opted for the revised New Pay Scale w. e. f. 1. 4. 1983 was fixed at Rs. 805/- (Basic pay) in the revised pay scale of Rs. 520-1660; whereas the employees who were juniors to the petitioner in the ministerial grade as referred to above, had opted for revised pay scale w. e. f. 15. 10. 85. THE situation, therefore which emerged as on 15. 10. 85 was as follows: - Petitioner's pay His juniors' pay referred to para 4 of the petition. Rs. 265. 00 Old Basic Rs. 250. 00 old Basic Rs. 1264. 20 D. A. Rs. 1264. 20 D. A. Rs. 1529. 20 Rs. 1514. 20 Rs. 50. 00 minimum firment benefit Rs. 50. 00 Rs. 1579. 20 Rs. 1564. 20 Revised New Pay Scale of the petitioner Revised New Pay Scale of his juniors referred to para 4 of the writ petition. Basic Rs. 970. 00 Rs. 910. 00 DA. Rs. 649. 90 Rs. 1619. 90 Rs. 635. 16 Rs. 1545. 16 On adding increment in basic pay of the juniors since their pay fall short of Rs. 1564. 20, their basic pay became as under: Basic Rs. 970. 00 D. A. Rs. 649. 90 Rs. 1619. 90 Notwithstanding the above revision of pay scales the respondents committed material irregularity in the matter of pay fixation of the petitioner qua other employees similarly placed by not taking note of salient fact that on the next date of their annual increment which fell due in December, 1985 and in June, 1986, while basic pay of juniors was increased to Rs. 1030; whereas the petitioner was getting Rs. 970/- only as his basic pay in December, 1985 as well as in June, 1986 since the petitioner had opted for the revised pay scale on 1. 4. 83; whereas his juniors opted for the revised new pay scale w. e. f. 15. 10. 85. The pay anamoly was thus created by the respondents by their own lapse in the matter of pay fixation on respective dates for option of the revised pay scales, as would be apparent from the table of the revised pay scales, as referred to above. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner that on 5. 11. 1986 the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the scale of Rs. 715-60-1135-75-2035 and was fixed at Rs. 1135/- as his basic pay. His junior Shri S. H. Meena was also promoted as Senior Assistant w. e. f. 5. 11. 86 but he opted for promotional pay scale w. e. f. 1. 12. 86 on which date his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 1210/ -. Thus the petitioner was getting less pay than his junior Shri Meena on the promoted post of Senior Assistant. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid anamoly could have been done away with had the petitioner's pay been raised in October, 1985 or in the alternative in December, 1985 to Rs. 1030/- per month which his junior Shri S. H. Meena got it. Similar was the case with respect to other two other officials who were both junior to the petitioner, namely, Shri R. K. Nagpal and Shri A. K. Sharma who were promoted as Senior Assistants on 8. 4. 1988 and 30. 5. 1988 and both were fixed at Rs. 1285/- in June, 1988. During the course of hearing it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in any event the petitioner was entitled to pay fixation in the same pay scale equal to that of his juniors if not more being given as a senior, since the petitioner was dis-charging the same functions and duties as assigned to his immediate juniors and that there was no reason to maintain disparity in the matter of pay fixation. A perusal of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner had made several representations to the respondent-corporation on 29. 1. 1987, 30. 9. 87, 24. 12. 87 and 31. 10. 88 for removing the anamoly in the matter of pay fixation and also for stepping up his pay equal to that of his juniors. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notwithstanding the above representations made by the petitioner no attention was paid to the same and on the contrary the petitioner received a letter dated 1. 3. 1989 communicating the refusal of the respondents to give any relief to the petitioner, and hence the petitioner was constrained to move this court by filing the present writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for the direction from this court to consider the case of the petitioner at par with other Administrative Officers of the respondent Corporation who were given the benefit in the matter of pay fixation in revised new pay scale which was denied to the petitioner and further to allow him one additional increment in preference to that of his juniors w. e. f. 15. 10. 85, to which the petitioner was entitled.
(3.) IN the reply filed by the respondents in para 8 it has been contended that "admittedly the petitioner has opted for the revision of pay scale w. e. f. 1. 4. 83. Moreover the petitioner as per his own case is claiming removal of disparity in the revision of pay scale. The anamoly comes out because of the date of increment of the petitioner and other persons which has nothing to do with the fixation of pay by these persons in the revised pay scale under the Amendment Scheme of 1985". Consequently the respondents have taken the stand that it is not the case of equal pay for equal work and that disparity in the matter of pay as stated above had arisen not on account of revision of pay but due to the different dates of grade increment. It has been further contended by the respondents in their reply that the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from the case of other Administrative Officers and that the anamoly in the pay of senior and junior persons comes out because of fixation of their pay in the revised pay scale w. e. f. 1. 10. 83. The abovenoted contentions referred to in the reply submitted on behalf of the respondents, have been controverted in the re-joinder filed on behalf of the petitioner. It will be pertinent to refer to paras 2, 5 and 6 of the re- joinder filed by the petitioner wherein it is mentioned that discrimination should not have been made on the basis of different dates of increments. While juniors were given basic pay of Rs. 970/- as on 15. 10. 85 while as per fitment chart the basic pay should have been Rs. 910/ -. Due to the provisions of minimum fitment benefit of Rs. 50/- per month, they were fixed at the basic pay of Rs. 970/- which was equal to the petitioner with the result that the juniors would start getting more than the seniors on the next date of their increments and thereby anamoly was created, which could not be the intention of the Corporation in the matter of general revision of pay. This fact is clearly apparent from Annexure 10 to the writ petition which is circular dated 4. 2. 88 issued by the respondent-corporation wherein it is specifically mentioned : - "the matter has since been re-examined by the Govt. and it has been decided that the Chairman GIC may examine and provide appropriate relief in these cases so as to restore inter-se parity with their juniors in their pay scale. The Chairman has examined the matter and has authorised grant of the additional increment from 15. 10. 85 to those officers who as on 1. 10. 83 were at the basic pay stage of Rs. 1010/- in the scale of AOs and continue in the scale of AO as on 15. 10. 85 at basic pay stage of Rs. 1100/- or below but continue their salary in the scale of AO on that day (due to option for fixation in AMs scale after 15. 10. 85)may also be allowed the said additional increment provided they satisfy the above basic pay norms". The above circular itself proves the discrimination between two sets of employees similarly placed and which has been done by the Corporation with no guidelines or policy. It is settled proposition of law that even in the matter of passing administrative orders where there are no fixed guidelines before any policy is impli-mented, it would not only result in creating disparity in the matter of pay fixation between two sets of employees who are similarly placed but would also result in arbitrariness which would not be tenable in the eye of law being violative of principles of natural justice, equity and fairplay and hostile discrimination amounting to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which is very much apparent from the perusal of Annexure 10 itself inasmuch as the same yard-stick should have been equally applied to the petitioner's case as well. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and also on examination of the documents placed on the record, I am consequently of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to succeed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner at par with other Administrative Officers and allow him the benefit of one additional increment in order to step up his pay equal to that of his juniors w. e. f. 15. 10. 85 whose names have been indicated in para 4 of the writ petition as referred to above, with all consequential benefits admissible to him in accordance with rules within three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. ;