GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the Association of Surveyors/amins of the Settlement Department, claiming that the provisions contained in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules 1989, in short the Rules of 1989, in so far as they provide pay in the scale of 950-1680, to the Settlement Surveyors, be declared illegal, and the respondents be directed to pay to the Settlement Surveyors in the scale of 1200-2050, with consequential benefits. Other relief claimed is, for issuance of direction to the respondents, to grant Hard Duty Allowance, so also that the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Traveling Allowance Rules, 1971, be declared illegal, and a direction has been claimed, to grant T. A. & D. A. , to the Settlement Surveyors.
(2.) IT is alleged by the petitioner, in the writ petition, that the revenue work of the Department is mainly divided in two parts, Survey & Settlement, and Revenue. Survey & Settlement Department conducts the survey of the lands other than urban lands, and after conducting the survey the settlement record is prepared, which records measurements of the lands, its situation, khasra number, classification, and determination of rent, and on that basis revenue records are prepared, for determining rights and titles of the parties. In the Settlement Department, duties of Settlement Surveyors have been prescribed by the Settlement Commissioner, as detailed in Annex.-1. IT is then alleged, that like Rajasthan, Settlement Department is in existence in almost all the States, as well as in Government of India, and that, the main work of this Department, in all the States, and the Central Government, is the same, which is being done by the Settlement Department of Government of Rajasthan. With this background, it has been alleged, that the State Government had not been paying equal scales of pay to the surveyors working in the Settlement Department, in comparison to the scales given to the surveyors of the Central Government. Then, it is alleged, that along with other department, the employee of the Settlement Department also went on strike in January 1989, and a settlement was arrived at on 24. 2. 1989, to the effect, that a committee will be established by the State Government, which will decide the question of grant of equal pay scales to the employees of the State Government, in comparison to the employees of the Central Government. Accordingly, a committee was constituted, before whom, the petitioner Association submitted its claim, claiming pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040, and creation of grade of 1400-2600, as selection grade. IT is alleged, that the Settlement Commissioner forwarded the claim, along with his recommendations in favour of the petitioner, vide Annexure-6. Then, representations were made, and the Assistant Secretary of the Government is also alleged to have made recommendations for grant of pay scale, as suggested by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Committee appears to have been satisfied with the submissions, that the pay scales deserves to be increased, but instead of making recommendations for grant of pay scale, equal to that of Central Government, the recommendations have been made for the grant of Scale No. 6 i. e. , 950-1680, and accordingly the Revised Pay Scales Rules of 1989 have been framed. IT is alleged, that along with the representation, the pay scale rules of various State Governments were also referred, to show, that number of other states are providing Settlement Surveyors the pay scale of 1200-2040, and that, persons working as Junior Surveyor in the Government of India are being given the pay scale of 1200-2040, since 1. 1. 1986. The details of the duties discharged by the Junior Surveyors in the Central Government, so also, the pay scale being given by the other states, have been pleaded in para B-11 of the writ petition. IT is claimed, that all the State Governments have granted almost identical pay scales to the employees, including those working in the Settlement Department, equivalent to the pay scales given by the Central Government, but in Rajasthan, it has not been done so. Then in para B/12/ (ii), it has been pleaded "that under the Rules of 1989 almost all categories of employees who were earlier getting pay in scale 880-1680 under the Rules of 1987 have been given pay in scale of 1200-2050". With this, the petitioner has purportedly produced a schedule, showing the details of pay, granted to the categories of the employees mentioned therein to show, that the petitioner should also be placed in the same pay scale. Then regarding T. A. , it is pleaded, that when posted at particular place, and when they have to go distant place, for the purpose of conducting survey, and they can return only after the survey is complete, the employees are provided only the expenses incurred in reaching the place of survey, and return, and no allowance, in the form of Daily Allowance, or any other compensatory allowance, to meet the expenses for continuously remaining at that place, are given, and that, they are given the House Rent Allowance in accordance with the place of their posting, irrespective of the place where they have been sent for survey. IT is also contended, that according to Rajasthan T. A. Rules, 1971, the halting allowance is admissible to an employee for each day of stay at a station beyond 8 kms. from the duty point, provided that the stay at that station on a particular day is for a period beyond 8 hours, but then, this is denied to the surveyors. IT is also contended, that various State Governments, and the Central Government, have been compensating the persons so working, by making payment of special pay, or fixed T. A. , on monthly basis, but then, all this is denied to the members of the petitioner Association. Then, Hard Duty Allowance has also been claimed, contending, that the Surveyors have to go for discharging the duties outside their headquarters, and have to remain in the field till the job is complete, and in that process have to remain out of headquarters for months together, but then, no facility has been provided for stay, or for compensating them towards expenses, and that, very nature of the work shows that Surveyors have to discharge the numerous duties, they have to travel on foot in remote areas, have to remain standing in the fields for hours together, irrespective of climate and thus, the duties cannot be said to be anything less than Hard Duty. IT is contended, that previously Hard Duty Allowance was given under the Rules of 1961 but was subsequently stopped, and in 1969, and 1984 recommendations were made to restore the Hard Duty Allowance. Then, it is pleaded, that the constables in the Police Department are given Hard Duty Allowance Similarly the Guards working in the Excise Department are also given Hard Duty Allowance, and similarly the members of the petitioner Association are also entitled to Hard Duty Allowance. The claim is substantially sought to be supported, on the anvil of Article 14, 16 and 39 (d ). In reply, it is contended, that the work done by the Surveyors employed in the Settlement Department of Government of Rajasthan is not identical to that of the Junior Surveyors working in the Central Government, and as such they cannot be compared. It is pleaded, that duties, responsibilities, qualification, and mode of recruitment of the Surveyors (Amins) under Government of India are not the same, as that of the Surveyors employed in the Government of Rajasthan. It was admitted, that the State Government took a policy decision, to revise the pay scale of the employees of the State Government, at par with the pay scale of the similar posts existing in the Government of India, and to implement, a committee was constituted, and the committee looked into the matter, also heard the representatives of the petitioner Association, but then, they could not satisfy the Committee, and they could not furnish any facts in support of their claim. It was pointed out, that the qualification of Surveyors under the State Government is Secondary, whereas the Surveyors under the Government of India are required to be Graduate. Thus, the pay of the two cadres cannot be compared. It was also pleaded, that the field of discharging duties by the Surveyors of the Central Government is wider than that of the Surveyors of the State Government. The Surveyors of the Central Government can be sent to any part of the country for the survey purpose, while the Surveyors of the State Government cannot, therefore, also they cannot claim parity. Regarding the plea of pay scales in other states, it was pleaded, that they are not legally entitled to pay such claim, as they cannot claim parity with the conditions, or pay scales, governing the pay scales of the other states. Regarding Schedule- A, it was pleaded, that the Surveyors cannot claim parity with the Teachers, as the qualifications of the two are different, inasmuch as, the teachers are required to undergo two years training, and obtain a certificate of B. S. T. C. /b. Ed. , which is an extra qualification, necessary for the appointment on the post. Regarding T. A. , it was pleaded, that the field staff are not allowed T. A. for performing the duties within their jurisdiction as the normal part of their duties. However, they are allowed the actual fare, when they go for long movements, and are also paid actual cost of carrying Survey Instruments, whenever they are sent on duty. Then, replying para-D-6, wherein parity was sought to be claimed, with Settlement Inspectors, it was contended, that the Inspector is required to supervise five or more Surveyors, and he has to travel from village to village, and therefore, a fixed T. A. is allowed to Settlement Inspector, apart from the fact that the scope of the duties of the two posts is different. The duties include Traversers, survey soil classification, attestation and disposal of objection etc. , and for this purpose, he is required to have a fast movement from one place to another. Then, regarding Hard Duty Allowance, it was pleaded, that earlier Hard Duty Allowance of Rs. 10/- per month was permissible to the Surveyors, but then, was subsequently merged with the new pay scale, as the new pay scale was adequately improved, as recommended by the Pay Commission in para-126 of Chapter XVI of the Ranawat Pay Commission, and therefore, they are not entitled to lay any claim on this count. It was pleaded, that the provisions of the Rules of 1989 are neither discriminatory, nor violative of Article 39 (d) of the Constitution. No rejoinder has been filed to controvert the factual averments in the reply, about the different qualification, for different posts, and different nature of duties. During pendency of the writ petition, at the direction of the Court, the respondent submitted the extract of the recommendations made by the Equivalence Committee, along with the affidavit, as to how, and why, the scale of 950-1680 was recommended for the post of Surveyors. Then few more documents have been filed by the respondents. Arguing the writ petition, the contents of the schedule were highlighted, according to which, the Teacher Gr. III, P. T. I. , Craft Teacher, Music Teacher, were all in the same pay scale No. 7, as were the petitioners, in the Pay Scale Rules of 1969, 1976, 1983, 1987, so also in 1989 Rules, the persons serving in these cadres have been given pay scale No. 9, being 1200-2050, while the petitioners have been given pay scale No. 6, being 950-1680, which also shows, that the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police were also getting same pay scale No. 7, in the Pay Scale Rules of 1969 and 1976, but in 1987 Rules, they were given Pay scale No. 8, instead of Scale No. 7, so also notwithstanding 1987 Rules, and in 1989 Rules, have been again brought at part with the other cadres, who were given scale No. 7, and were given scale No. 9. Thus, it is contended, that the scales are discriminatory. Attention was also invited to the pay scales being paid to Surveyors by the State Government in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and the Surveyors working in the Central Government. Then, attention was also invited to fix allowances being paid to the Surveyors working in the Central Government. Then, attention was also invited to fix allowances being paid to the Surveyors of the State Government, in the State of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. It was then pleaded, that the reason considered by the Equivalence Committee, about non admissibility of selection scales to the Teachers is not correct, inasmuch as, by notification of 1998, the Teachers have been held entitled to the selection scale on completion of 10 years of service instead of 9 years, at which the other persons are entitled. Submissions for T. A. & D. A. etc. were also made. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in S. K. Ghosh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1984 RLR 966, to submit, that therein, this Court had considered the pay scales of P. S. to C. J. and other Judges of this Court, vis-a-vis the P. S. of the Commissioners and Secretaries of the State Government, in the matter of pay scale, and appreciating that, a mandamus was issued, directing the State Government, to amend the High Court Staff Rules, or otherwise by making an executive order, so as to give effect to the five points, catalogued in para-36 of the judgment, which include, a direction to the effect, that an official who has actually worked as Personal Assistant cum Judgment Writer/private Secretary to Chief Justice/judges of the High Court, in the pay scales mentioned therein, for a continuous period of at 3 years, shall be eligible for being appointed to a post, in the cadre, as directed in point No. (a ). Then, for excess number of posts, reconstituted into the new cadre, is to form a distinct cadre, carrying a distinct designation, like Personal Assistants cum Judgment Writers, and enjoying the pay scale, allowances and status, at part with the Personal Assistants in the State Secretariat, and that, not less than one third posts, out of the posts, as per point No. (c), shall be given the pay scale, and status, equal to the pay scale and status of Senior Personal Assistants in the State Secretariat, with effect from 1. 4. 1984, etc. Thus, it was claimed, that for the Surveyors also, a mandamus is required to be issued. Reliance was then placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Bharat Petroleum (erstwhile Burmah Shell) Management Staff Pensioners vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Reported in AIR 1988 SC-1407, wherein, consequent upon taking over of the company by the Government Company, the pension was allowed to be escalated, at per with the other similar companies. Reliance was then placed on yet another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter vs. Union of India, reported in (1989) 2 SCC-299, wherein, the petitioners who were carpenter, mason, painter, etc. of Military Engineering Services under the Ministry of Defence, commonly known as MES, assailed the upgradation of some of the trades, out of the 15 trades, and Hon'ble the Supreme Court found, that the employees of the different trades, in the skilled grade, cannot be treated differently, i. e. , by allowing higher scale of pay to employees of some of the trades, from an earlier date, and giving the same benefit to members of other trades, in the skilled grade, from a later date, and accordingly the benefit was directed to be given. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, maintaining, that the petitioners could not satisfy the Equivalence Committee, it was contended, that the work of the Junior Surveyor in the Central Government, and the qualifications required for appointment are not the same, as are required for the Surveyors in the State of Rajasthan, so also regarding Teachers. Then, the pleadings taken in respect of the claim of T. A. & Hard Duty Allowance were reiterated. Then reliance was placed, by Mr. Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of H. P. vs. P. D. Attri, reported in (1999) 3 SCC-217, wherein, it was held, that parity, which is only traditional, but not based on any legal principle, and there is no law against departure from such parity, and the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court, giving benefits, at par with those, being given in Punjab & Haryana High Court, was set aside, inasmuch as, the claim was not upheld from the time it was given in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It was also held, that any change in the pay scale, following Punjab & Haryana High Court, can set in motion other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation, among various categories of employees, and therefore, rules of different High Courts were required to be examined independently, and that, there cannot be any such law, that the Himachal Pradesh High Court has to suo- moto follow the same rules, as applicable to the employees, working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Reliance was then placed on another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of WEst Bengal vs. Deb Kumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1995 SC- 1889, wherein, considering the principles of Article 39 (d), (equal pay for equal work), it was found, that there is nothing common between the Animal Husbandry Department and Housing Department, so as to claim parity of pay scales, by the Inspectors of the two Departments. Thus, the claim was declined. Reliance was then placed on the latest judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of Haryana vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, reported in AIR 2002 SC-2589 = RLW 2003 (1) SC 3, wherein it was held in para-10, that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal, to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay, and determination of parity, in duties and responsibilities, is a complex matter, which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter, several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered, keeping in view the prevailing financial position, and capacity of the State Government, to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind, that the priority given to different types of posts, under the prevailing policies of the State Government, is also a relevant factor, for consideration, by the State Government. In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the far reaching consequences of a decision in the matter, and its impact on the administration of the State Government, Courts have taken the view, that ordinarily Courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions, pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say, that the matter is not justiciable, or that, the Courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision, taken by the Government. The Courts should approach such matters, with restraint, and interfere only when they are satisfied, that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial, to a section of employees, and the Government, while taking the decision, has ignored factors, which are material, and relevant, for a decision in the matter. Even in a case, where the Court holds the order passed by the Government to be unsustainable, then ordinarily, a direction should be given to the State Government, or the authority taking the decision, to reconsider the matter, and pass a proper order. The Court should avoid giving a declaration, granting a particular scale of pay, and compelling the Government to implement the same. Thus, it was prayed, that no interference is required to be made, in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, to strike down the rules.
(3.) IN rejoinder, it was contended, that vide Annexure-6, the respondent No. 2, who is the Head of Department, and who is the right man, to assess the duties and difficulties of the members of the petitioner Association, had also recommended, as claimed by the petitioner Association, and therefore, there is every justification for the petitioners to claim the pay scales, and other allowances as claimed. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the various judgments, so also perused the Revised Pay Scales Rules, including Pay Scales Rules of Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised New Pay Scales) Rules, 1976, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 and the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1989. Before proceeding further I may better deal with the judgments cited by either side. ;