Bharat Singh Nara & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ANR
!"
#$%$!
&''
( ( ''' )) **
% + ,%-% ( ''' %)!
% .& / .' ( .'(' . 0 / .(' ( (1+ 1'
, % &
.'(' . 0 ' 23
!"#$!#%& '()%#%&)!#%$ '()!#*+#)!#%! The stand of the appellants , (
-
.
!!#*!#%!/.
!##!!##" ' %# .
%1 .
-
!!#*!#%!
%% .
!12 3
%& .
!#2
-
' !!#!!##"
- !!#*!#%!4 '
%#%1 .
- 3
%%%& .
!12 !#2 ,
. 1 '
5 + '
5 ,
' 6 -
. .
!!#*!#%!
- The stand of the State/respondents (
,
- ' 7
4 /. 8
4 . 99 : :7'
.
. - 4 99 :7 '
- ,
#%#%!#%+ -
'
4
. '
-
' 7
. !##!!##" 5
!##;!##% .<)
! " # $
%
&
' ( " #
)
*+ *+ , , , '
-
3
' 7
!!#*!#%!
, . /.
. =3.
>. '
.
.
?
.
3
? '
The impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in the WP
>. (
!"#$!#%& .
' '
- ' 7
4 . 3
?
.
. .
/. . .
.
? . /. - . .
-
? . ' 7
4
? . .4 .
?
' 7
-
The instant LPAs
!
%$ , $!
67 8 !-,
- . '
!!*!#%!
'
!!!!##" ' %#%1 .
@'A
-
3
%%%& .
@'A !12!#2
B.
< * +
-- - -../0 *+
&#" %#1) 2 )
0, .
- '
'
0 ! . '
!"# $%
& '
(
'
)* %''
# +
(
!
( . ( .
%% ( 03 .
+ '
5 ,
- '
#%#%!##+ ' (
3 5 '
!$%!!##* ' @3.)+'()%%$")!#%&A, ? 5 '
+ ' '
5
. , . 7 =
?
. . .
.
CC
CC:
+ '
'
.
?)1 (
+ '
5 ,
(
.
3.)+
.
.
. !##;!##% C
. 3 .
. .
-
' 6
'
.
. '
.
"# $%
) '
,'
- ,''
+).
/
./
, .< "25. since the very inception, the educational qualification for appointment as Vocational Masters had been a degree or a diploma with three years' experience as both the qualifications were placed on a par. All persons were appointed by a common process of selection and they teach the same classes, performing the same work. No distinction can be brought about between the persons so appointed. It is only subsequently that the appellants designated some of the Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about an artificial distinction between the two. Even on account of redesignation of the degree-holders and postgraduates as Vocational Lecturers, there was no change in the responsibilities and the financial matters as between the degree-holders and diploma-holders before the alleged notification which fact is duly admitted by the State. There is no distinction between the Vocational Lecturers and Vocational Masters and they form one unified cadre and class. There cannot be any discrimination between
:
similarly situated persons, whether by way of a government notification or any amendment in the Rules. As far as nature of work is concerned, it is stated that the Vocational Masters are discharging their duty in the Senior Secondary Schools in the engineering/non-engineering trades and have the technical qualifications while the Vocational Lecturers are also discharging the same duties in the same schools. Both Vocational Masters and Lecturers are teaching the same classes i.e. 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 and hence the nature of work, responsibilities and duties being identical and the pay scales were also kept identical since 1978 onwards.
26. The principle of equality is also fundamental in formulation of any policy by the State and the glimpse of the same can be found in Articles 38, 39, 39-A, 43 and 46 embodied in Part IV of the Constitution of India. These Articles of the Constitution of India mandate that the State is under a constitutional obligation to assure a social order providing justice-social, economic and political, by inter alia, minimising monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to adequate means of livelihood and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life, and by promoting economic interests of the weaker sections.
Meaning thereby, if the State is giving some economic benefits to one class while denying the same to other then the onus of justifying the same lies on the State specially in the circumstances when both the classes or group of persons were treated as same in the past by the State. Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salary as Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of the 4th Pay Commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances would amount to arbitrariness which cannot be sustained in the eye of the law if no reasonable justification is offered for the same.
27. We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be granted. However, if the basic qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid down, then the Court shall be reluctant to
accept the action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some good reasons are disclosed."
8.
/.
.
. 8.
3 3
'
. .
.
.
( .
D ? - ' 7
. /. . .
.
'
.
- '
.
"# $%
0
-/ .4 -.5/6"&75//57-.58+
.
.
.
=
? .
( ? 7 >. =
?
'
7 '
. . . .
/. .
@A@ A
2.'(' . 3 2(1+ 13 ''
( ? : < F:0
(
< F:0