Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 2. Admiedly, aer his inial appointment as Clerk in Punjab State Tubewell Corporaon (re-named as Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporaon) – respondent No.1, peoner was promoted as Senior Assistant in 1985 and then was promoted as Divisional Accountant in September, 2001 aer passing Departmental Divisional Accountant Examinaon. The post of the Senior Assistant is feeder post for being promoted as Superintendent Grade – I as well as Divisional Accountant. 3.1 According to peoner, pursuant to the direcons issued by the Punjab Government dated 01.10.1984 vide Annexure P-2, parity/near parity in respect of the posts exisng in respondent No.1 Corporaon was maintained by corresponding post of the Government Department in the maer of recruitment, service condions and pay scales and it was under these circumstances that higher pay scale than that of the Senior Assistants’ pay scale was granted to the Divisional Accountant, it being a promoonal post. 3.2 It is alleged that though during the pay revision of 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996, higher pay scale was granted to the category of Divisional Accountant, but in the revision of 01.01.2006, much lower grade pay was granted to Divisional Accounts Officer than the Superintendent Grade-I, inasmuch as grade pay of ₹3,800/- was granted to the Senior Assistant & grade pay of ₹4,200/- was granted to the Divisional Accountant and grade pay of ₹5,000/- was granted to Superintendent Grade-1. The said difference in the grade pay further escalated w.e.f. 01.12.2011, when feeder cadre of Senior Assistant was granted the higher grade pay of ₹4,400/-, but the grade pay of Divisional Accounts Officer (Divisional Accountant) was not correspondingly enhanced. Grade pay of Superintendent Grade-1 at that me was enhanced from ₹5,000/- to ₹5,400/-. 3.3 On the representaon dated 22.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) made by the peoner, a Commiee of higher officers of the respondent recommended to equate the Divisional Accounts Officer with Superintendent Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 Grade-I, but the said recommendaon was rejected by the Government by way of impugned order dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure P-6). Another representaon dated 27.04.2015 met the same fate vide order dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure P-9). Thereaer, peoner made comprehensive representaon (Annexure P-11) and then filed CWP No.7724 of 2016, in which direcon was issued on 27.04.2016 to consider the claim of the peoner by passing a speaking order and consequent thereto, the Managing Director of respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the peoner vide impugned order dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure P-13). 3.4 The grievance of the peoner is that promoonal post cannot have a pay either lower or equivalent to the pay scale of a feeder cadre post. Though, w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the grade pay of Senior Assistant was ₹3,800/-, that of Divisional Accountant as ₹4,200/- and Superintendent as ₹5,000/-, but w.e.f. 01.12.2011, the grade pay of Senior Assistant was enhanced to ₹4,400/- and that of Superintendent as ₹5,400/-, but as far as Divisional Accountant is concerned, the same was maintained at ₹4,200/-. 4. Contenon of learned Senior counsel for the peoner is that peoner is not only entled for correspondence increase in the grade pay comparing to the grade pay granted to the Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.12.2011, the grade pay to the peoner is liable to be granted as equivalent to that of Superintendent Grade – I. 5. In the inial reply filed by respondent No.1; and the joint reply filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, it was contended that fixaon of pay scale was purely an execuve funcon, as principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply in the present case. It was further pleaded that though the post of Superintendent Grade – I and that Divisional Accounts Officer emanates from the post of Clerk, which is a feeder cadre, but line and channel of promoon is different, as the work and dues performed are also different. The Divisional Accounts Officer deals with the accounts secon only, whereas Superintendent works in supervisory capacity in different branches and not restricted to accounts. The respondents, thus, defended Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 the impugned orders in not granng the grade pay of Superintendent Grade - I to the post of Divisional Accountant/Divisional Accounts Officer, i.e. the post held by the peoner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the pares and have appraised the record carefully. 7. In the order dated 11.05.2023, this Court observed that the pay scale aached to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer in comparison to the one aached to the post of Senior Assistant and that of Superintendent was as under:- Dates Senior Assistant Divisional Accountant Superintendent Prior to 1.1.1986 570-1080 700-1200 620-1200 Gr.-II 01.01.1986 1500-2640 1640-3200 1800-3200 1993 1800-3200 2000-3500 2000-3500 Post of Superintendent Gr.-1 was created in the Corporaon in 1996 01.01.1996 5800-9200 6400-10640 6400-10640 01.01.2006 10300-34800 + GP 3800 10300-34800 + GP 4200 10300-34800 + GP 5000 01.12.2011 10300-34800 + GP 4400 10300-34800 + GP 4200 10300-34800 + GP 5400 It was noced further in order dated 11.05.2023 that w.e.f. 01.12.2011, the pay of the peoner, who was working as Divisional Accounts Officer aer his promoon from the post of Senior Assistant, was reduced at a scale lower even to his feeder cadre of senior assistant, leave aside treang him at par with the Superintendent. It was noced further that recommendaons of respondent No.1-Corporaon had been annulled by the Government of Punjab (Annexures P-6 and P-9) without any reasoning despite the fact that anomaly viz-a-viz the feeder cadre of Senior Assistant with that of the promoonal cadre of Divisional Accounts Officer was wrien large. Therefore, the Secretary (Finance), Government of Punjab was asked to file his affidavit explaining the reasons behind Annexures P-6 and P-9. Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 8.1 Consequent to the aforesaid order dated 11.05.2023, the Secretary Finance, Department of Finance, Government of Punjab filed his affidavit dated 06.11.2023, as per which the post of Divisional Accountant as held by the peoner was re-designated that Divisional Accounts Officer, a Group-B post in the meeng of Board of Directors of the Corporaon held on 25.04.2005 and that as per terms and condions of the change of the designaon of Divisional Accountant to that of Divisional Accounts Officer, an undertaking was to be given by the Divisional Accountants, as per which they will neither claim any financial benefits/revision of pay scale nor any promoon to the post of Assistant Controller (Finance and Accounts) as in the Head Officer of the Corporaon. Such undertaking was also given by the peoner, the copy of which is Annexure R-1. 8.2 It was further submied that w.e.f. 01.12.2011, pay scale for the post of Superintendent Grade-I in the Department of State of Punjab was revised to ₹15,600-39,100 + ₹5,400 grade pay and therefore, the peoner, who was placed in the pay scale of ₹10,300-34,800 + ₹4,200 grade pay could not claim parity with the abovesaid pay scale of Superintendent Grade -1. It was further menoned in the said affidavit that aer implementaon of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission, the pay scales granted in the year 2011 stood raonalized. 8.3 The affidavit dated 06.11.2023 further menoned as under:- “11. That, now aer implementaon of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission, the pay scales granted in the year 2011 stands raonalised. The Pay Commission in its report submied on 30.04.2021, has clearly held that the anomalous situaon which had arisen because of re-revision and enhancement of salaries ordered in the month of October, November and December, 2011 for numerous categories of Government employees, just aer about two years of implementaon of the recommendaon of 5th Punjab Pay Commission was unprecedented in its scale and ming. Considering the same, the Pay Commission has made a conclusive finding in its report in its Para 5.3, which inter alia reads as here under:- Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 1) ‘..........The revision was discriminatory and lacked transparency. The revision benefi-ed only a select category of employees. The Minutes of the Cabinet Sub-Commi-ee or the Cabinet Memoranda do not contain any criteria for selecng the categories of employees for re-revision of wages. From the procedure followed, it is not clear if all employees were even given an opportunity through a public noce or internal Government circular to submit their representaons to the Cabinet Sub Commi-ee. It is a case where equal opportunity was denied to all employees of the Government. In view of these recommendaons of 6th Pay Commission, the midterm re-revision of pay scales done into 2011 has been duly looked into. 2) That now a6er implemenng the recommendaons of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission by the Government of Punjab, the anomalous situaon which arose in 2011 has been removed.” 9. Aer nocing the abovesaid contents of the affidavit dated 06.11.2023 of the Secretary Finance, Department of Finance, Government of Punjab, this Court observed in its order dated 12.02.2024 that though it had been menoned that aer implementaon of the recommendaons of the 6th Pay Commission by the Government of Punjab, the anomalous situaon which had arisen in 2011 had been removed, but no details have been given as to how the same had been removed viz-a-viz the case of the peoner. 10. 10. The State counsel sought me to clarify the above said query of the court and consequent thereto, addional affidavit dated 16.09.2024 by the Secretary Finance, Department of Finance, Government of Punjab, was filed, the relevant poron of which reads as under:- “6. That, w.e.f. 01.12.2011, on the recommendaons of Cabinet Sub Commiee, the Pay Scales for the post of Senior Assistant and Superintendent Grade-I in the Departments of State of Punjab were revised to 10300-34800 + 4400 Grade Pay and 15600-39100 + 5400 Grade Pay respecvely. It is pernent to menon here that the pay scale of Divisional Accounts Officer was not revised, as there existed no such post in the Departments of Government of Punjab. Furthermore, the pay scales revisions of the year 2011 were limited to only a number of categories of posts in the Departments of Government of Punjab. Due to the above-said Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 revision of scales in the year 2011, the pay scale for the post of Superintendent Grade-1 became equivalent to the pay scale for the post of Assistant Controller (Finance and Accounts) as in the Head office of the Corporaon. However, the peoner had already submied an undertaking (Annexed as Annexure R-1 with the Affidavit filed on 06.11.2023) in which he had duly accepted terms and condions, whereby he will not claim any financial benefits of revision of pay scales and benefits pertaining to the post of Assistant Controller (Finance and Accounts) as in the Head office of the Corporaon. 7. That, it is worthwhile to menon here that the channel of promoon and the cadre of both the posts (i.e. Divisional Accounts Officer and Superintendent Grade-1) are disnct from each other. Furthermore, the scale of Superintendent Grade-1 had always remained higher than the scale of Divisional Accountant/ Divisional Accounts officer. Comparison of the two posts, within the ambit of previously applicable pay scales is as under:- Name of the post Pay Scales 1/1/1996 1/1/2006 1/12/2011 Superintendent Grade-1 7220-11660 10300-34800 + 5000 Grade Pay 15600-39100 + 5400 Grade Pay Divisional Accountant/Divisional Accounts Officer 6400-10640 10300-34800 + 4200 Grade Pay No revision Therefore, if the pay scale of Divisional Accounts Officer was equated to pay scale of Superintendent Grade-1, it would lead to the anomalies in other posts. Even the work profile, dues, responsibilies of both the posts are separate and the Divisional Accounts Officer cannot claim parity with the Pay Scale for the post of Superintendent Grade- 1 present in the Departments of State of Punjab. 8. That the instrucons dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure P-10 as appended with writ peon) are clear that an anomalous situaon is said to have arisen only in those cases, where on account of implementaon of the recommendaons of the Cabinet Sub Commiee, the Pay Scales of the promoonal post have become less as compared to the Pay Scales of the junior post, only such cases were to be considered by the Government. The post of Divisional Accountant/Divisional Accounts Officer is not a Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 promoonal post of Senior Assistant in the Departments of Government of Punjab, and the next promoonal post from Senior Assistant is Superintendent in the Government Departments, carrying the pay scale of 15600-39100 + 5400 w.e.f. 01.12.2011. Therefore, in view of these instrucons dated 23.05.2012, advices dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure P-6 as appended with writ peon) and dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure P-9 as appended with writ peon) were duly issued. The Government had duly examined the said case of pay parity and it was found that if the scale of this one cadre (i.e. Divisional Accounts Officer) serving under the Corporaon is modified, the same would have repercussions on various other numerous categories in various Departments of Government of Punjab. 9. That, now aer implementaon of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission, the pay scales granted in the year 2011 stand raonalised. The Pay Commission in its report submied on 30.04.2021, decided to treat the revision ordered in 2011 on the recommendaons of the Cabinet Sub Commiee as non-est for the purpose of determining the wage increase w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The recommendaons of the new pay structure in 6th Punjab Pay Commission has been based on the scales of pay granted by the 5th Punjab Pay Commission. As per the recommendaons of 6th Punjab Pay Commission, following matrix levels have been defined for the above-said categories of posts, removing the earlier anomaly of the pay scales therein – Name of the post Pay Scales recommended by 5th Punjab Pay Commission and adopted by State Government vide noficaon dated 27th May 2009. Scale as per recommendaons of a Cabinet Sub- Commiee of the year 2011 w.e.f. 01.12.2011 (not draed by a Pay Commission) Pay Scales recommended by 6th Punjab Pay Commission aer raonalizaon and due approval of Cabinet and adopted by State Government vide noficaon dated 5th July 2021. Senior Assistant 10300-34800 + 3800 Grade Pay 10300-34800 + 4400 Grade Pay 38500 (Matrix Level 11) Divisional Accounts Officer 10300-34800 + 4200 Grade Pay No revision (remains same as per 5th PPC) 43000/- (Matrix Level 12) Superintendent Grade – 1 10300-34800 + 5000 Grade Pay 15600-39100 + 5400 Grade Pay 48700/- (Matrix Level 16) Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 Thus, as already menoned above, the enhancement of salaries ordered in the month of October, November and December 2011 was unprecedented in its scale and ming. However, it is worth menoning here that with the implementaon of 6th Punjab Pay Commission, the concept of grade pay has been done away with (as elaborated in the table above). Aer the implementaon of 6th Pay Commission and its adopon by the said Corporaon, the pay of peoner has been fixed in a higher matrix from Senior Assistant and below the Superintendent Grade -1 as has been in all earlier Pay Commissions: thereby invalidang the 211 Cabinet Sub- Commiee recommendaons and removal of earlier pay anomaly created thereto.” 11. It is evident from the above-said affidavit dated 16.09.2024 of the Secretary Finance, Department of Finance, Government of Punjab that the 6th pay commission in its report submied on 30.4.2021 has decided to treat the revision ordered in 2011 on the recommendaon of Cabinets Sub Commiee as non-est for the purpose of determining the wages increased w.e.f. 01.01.2016. It is further evident that recommendaons of the new pay structure in the 6th Punjab Pay Commission is now based on the scale of pay granted by 5th Punjab Pay Commission. 12. The recommendaons of 6th Punjab Pay Commission would reveal that the pay scale of the Senior Assistant has now been recommended to 38,500/- (Matrix level 11), whereas for Divisional Accounts Officer, i.e. the post held by the peoner prior to his rerement, the same is 43,000/- (Matrix level 12), i.e. higher than the pay scale of Senior Assistant. As such, the grievance of the peoner to the effect that the grade pay of Senior Assistant, i.e. feeder post was higher than that of promoonal post of Divisional Accountant/ Divisional Accounts Officer w.e.f. 01.12.2011 has been treated as non-est; and thus, the higher pay scale in Matrix level-12 comparing to the post of Senior Assistant in Matrix level-11 has been granted to the Divisional Accounts Officer, as per the recommendaons of the 6th Punjab Pay Commission and thus, the grievance of the peoner regarding Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 the anomalous condion stands removed. As such, relief sought by the peoner in this regard has become infructuous. 13. As far as the claim of the peoner for grant of parity in pay scale with Superintendent Grade -1 is concerned, it has not merit. As has been pointed out by the respondents that though the feeder post for both the posts, i.e. Divisional Accounts Officer and the Superintendent Grade – 1 is the same, i.e. Senior Assistant/ clerk, but the channel of the promoon and cadre of both the posts are disnct from each other. Even their work profile, the dues and responsibilies for the two posts are separate and as such, the Divisional Accounts Officer cannot claim parity with the pay scale of the post of Superintendent Grade – 1, simply because at some point of me, the pay scale of the two posts was same. 14. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon “Union of India and others v. Hiranmoy Sen and others”, (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 630, wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “5. Learned counsel for the respondents submied that the auditors and assistants have been historically treated on a par in the maer of pay scales. Although this fact has been denied by the appellant, we are of the opinion that even if it is correct, that will not be of any help to the respondents. To give an illustraon, if post A and post B have been carrying the same pay scales, merely because the pay scale of post A has been increased that by itself cannot result in increase in the pay scale of post B to the same level. It is enrely on the Government and the authories to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale of post B should be increased or not. The judiciary must exercise self-restraint and not encroach into the execuve or legislave domain.” 15. Apart from above, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. v. Seema Sharma”, 2022(3) SCT 445 as under: - “23. The fixaon of scales of pay is a maer of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in exceponal cases where there is discriminaon Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.741 of 2017 2025:PHHC: 007391 between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the dues are idencal in every aspect.” 16. In view of the aforesaid legal posion, it is held that simply because the post of Superintendent Grade – 1 and that of Divisional Accounts Officer have the same feeder past of Senior Assistant, that cannot be a reason to grant the same pay scale to both of them, as it is enrely for the Government and the Authories to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale for one post should be equivalent to the other or different. 17. Consequent to above discussion, the present peon is hereby dismissed. January 20, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:50 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order