Once Posts Merge Into One Cadre, State Can't Prescribe Different Pay Scales Based On Pre-Merger Status: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the State Government merges two posts into a single cadre with retrospective effect, it cannot thereafter prescribe two different pay scales for members of that unified cadre on the basis of the post each of them held before the merger. It held that such a classification answers to no difference in qualifications, duties or responsibilities and...
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the State Government merges two posts into a single cadre with retrospective effect, it cannot thereafter prescribe two different pay scales for members of that unified cadre on the basis of the post each of them held before the merger.
It held that such a classification answers to no difference in qualifications, duties or responsibilities and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“Once the posts had merged into one cadre with retrospective effect from 01.01.1986, the State Government could not create two different pay scales amongst members of the same cadre merely on the basis of their pre-merger status.”
Respondents were appointed between 1981 and 1986 as Live Stock Development Assistants in the Animal Husbandry Department, a post re-named Live Stock Extension Inspector by Government Order dated 4th February 1988. Before 1990 the department carried two posts: Live Stock Extension Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 470–735/- and Live Stock Development Assistant/ Extension Inspector in Rs. 400–615/-, though both required the same qualifications and involved substantially identical functions.
A Task Force Committee constituted by Government Order dated 20th January 1987 found no material difference in the duties of the two categories and recommended that the Extension Inspectors' claim to the higher pay scale be placed before the Pay Commission. By Government Order dated 19th July 1989, pay scales were revised with effect from 1st January 1986, Extension Officers to Rs. 1200–2040/- and Extension Inspectors to Rs. 975–1660/-.
The State thereafter accepted the recommendations of the Pay Commission and merged the two posts into a single cadre with effect from 1st January 1986 by Government Order dated 3rd March 1990, whose retrospective operation was clarified by order dated 5th June 1991. Extension Inspectors were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200–2040/- from that date.
Government Order dated 2nd April 1992 then extended the further revised pay scale of Rs. 1350–2200/- only to those who had actually been working as Live Stock Extension Officers before 1st January 1986 in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 470–735/-. The remaining members of the unified cadre, including the respondents, continued at Rs. 1200–2040/-.
Allowing the writ petition, a Single Judge held that the merger had made all incumbents one homogeneous class and that the classification drawn by the Government Order dated 2nd April 1992 was an impermissible one within a single cadre, violative of Articles 14 and 16. The order was quashed to that extent and the writ petitioners directed to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1350–2200/- from 1st January 1986 with consequential arrears. The State preferred a Special Appeal.
The Court relied on S. Sivaguru v. State of Tamilnadu, where the Supreme Court, dealing with the merger of two posts in the health department of Tamil Nadu, held that redesignated post holders could not be treated differently on the basis of their initial source of recruitment. On the effect of an integration of cadres, the Court observed,
“upon merger of cadres, the earlier separate identity of the cadres ceases and the employees become members of the newly constituted unified cadre. Once such integration takes place, differentiation amongst members of the same cadre merely on the basis of their erstwhile cadre identity cannot ordinarily be sustained.”
Applying that principle, the Court held that the sole basis of differentiation under the Government Order dated 2nd April 1992 was that one group had held the higher designation before 1st January 1986 while the other reached it through the merger. It rejected the argument that the classification protected senior employees.
“Seniority of the years of service may have relevance in matters of promotion and other service benefits, however, grant of two different pay scales to employees holding the same post in the same cadre requires a rational basis. A distinction based merely upon the date on which an employee joined the service before merger of the cadre cannot justify differential pay after the cadre itself has been unified as the same is against the principles established by the Supreme Court in S. Sivaguru (Supra).”
The Court also rejected the argument that the 1992 order amended the 1989 order only for the post of Live Stock Extension Officer, holding that after the merger the respondents drew pay not as Extension Inspectors but as members of the unified cadre. Since the object of the exercise had been to remove the disparity between employees performing identical duties, two pay scales within the same cadre ran contrary to the very purpose of the merger.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Special Appeal and directed the State authorities to extend the pay scale of Rs. 1350–2200/- to the respondents from 1st January 1986 with all consequential benefits.
Case Title: State of U.P. and 8 others v. Sant Lal Sonkar and 8 others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ratan Deep Mishra, Pranab Kumar Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar, Shravan Kumar Panday