M. Jeyapaul, J.@mdashThe Petitioners are the employees of Haryana Financial Corporation. In the year, 1979, a legal cell was created in Haryana Financial Corporation. The Corporation, having taken a decision that the Legal Assistants serving in the Corporation are having the very same qualifications, duties and responsibilities as that of Assistant District Attorney, decided that their pay scales shall be -treated on par with that of Assistant District Attorney in Haryana Government. Similarly, it was also decided by the Board that the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the Law Officers serving in the Corporation are the same as that of the Deputy District Attorney in Haryana Government. The pay scale as that of the Assistant District Attorney and that Deputy District Attorney was ordered to be paid to the Legal Assistants and Law Officers respectively working in the Corporation.
2. In the year 1986, the Haryana Government again revised the pay scales of Assistant District Attorney and Deputy District Attorney. Based on the representation submitted by the Petitioners to the Corporation, the Managing Director of the Corporation recommended the revised pay scales of Assistant District Attorney and the Deputy District Attorney attached to the Government of Haryana to the Legal Assistants and the Law Officers attached to the Corporation. The recommendation of the Managing Director was placed before the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors also approved the revision of pay scales of Legal Assistants and Law Officers on par with the revised pay scales fixed by the Government of Haryana for those two equivalent officers serving in the Government of Haryana subject to the approval of the Government.
3. The decision of the Board was communicated to the Government of Haryana for necessary approval in order to revise the pay scales of the Law Officers and Legal Assistants serving in its department. In a cryptic order, the Superintendent attached to the Commissioner and Secretary Industries Department (Haryana) rejected the recommendation submitted by the Haryana Financial Corporation.
4. The impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent is now under challenge in the present writ petition. The learned senior counsel Shri R.K. Malik appearing on behalf of the Petitioners would submit that the Government has nothing to do with the revision of pay scales done by the Board of Directors of the Haryana Financial Corporation, inasmuch as the Board has the authority to take decisions independently with respect to the pay scales of its employees. The conscious decision taken by the Board has been disapproved by the 2nd Respondent in the guise of some circular issued by the 1st Respondent. It is his further submission that only in policy matters relating to financial affairs of the Financial Corporation, the advice of the Government would be taken by the Corporation u/s 39 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The Board, which can take independent decisions to revise the pay scales of its employees, has totally surrendered its authority by subjecting its decision to the approval of the 1st Respondent, it is submitted. It is his last submission that the 1st Respondent has acted beyond its jurisdiction and, therefore, the conscious decision taken by the Board with respect to the revision of pay of the Petitioners will how to be implemented unmindful of the disapproval of the Haryana Government.
5. The learned Government advocate appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 would submit referring to the instructions issued by the 1st Respondent that a policy decision has been taken by the Government of Haryana that all the proposals of the revision of pay scales shall be routed through the Financial Department of the Government of Haryana. Therefore, it is his submission that the Board has rightly submitted its decision with respect to the revision of pay of the Petitioners to the 2nd Respondent, who has rightly rejected as the duties and responsibilities of the Petitioners serving in the Haryana Financial Corporation are totally different from the Officers working in the position of Assistant District Attorney and Deputy District Attorney in the Government of Haryana. Therefore, it is his submission that parity of pay cannot be claimed by the Petitioners with that of their counterparts serving in the Government Departments.
6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of 3rd Respondent-Haryana Financial Corporation would submit that the 3rd Respondent has rightly referred its decision to the 2nd Respondent for its approval with respect to the revision of pay of the Petitioners, as there is a direction issued by the 1st Respondent to route the proposals for revision of pay scales through the Financial Department of the Government of Haryana. He would further submit that the Petitioners have not projected in their written statement nor have they filed any reply to the written statement filed by the Respondents that their duties and responsibilities are quite similar to that of their counterparts serving in the Government Departments. Referring to the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent would submit that unless qualifications, nature of functions, duties and responsibilities and the quality of work expected from such employees are quite similar, parity in pay cannot be claimed. Therefore, it is his submission that the 2nd Respondent has rightly rejected the plea for revision recommended by the 3rd Respondent.
7. The Managing Director of the Haryana Financial Corporation had submitted a proposal before the 97th Board meeting, which was proposed to be held on 15.10.1979 recommending the revision of pay scales for the Legal Assistants and Law Officers, equating their positions with that of the Assistant District Attorney and Deputy District Attorney serving in the Government of Haryana. He has also submitted a proposal before the Board meeting that their scales of pay shall be revised equal to that of the scales of pay of their counterparts working in the Government of Haryana.
8. In the Board meeting that was held on 15.10.1979, the Board of Directors approved the revision of pay scales of Law Officers and Legal Assistants as recommended by the Managing Director. It is the admitted position that the Petitioners have been drawing the revision of pay scales on bar with their counterparts working in the Government of Haryana right from the year, 1979.
9. Based on the representations made by the Law Officers and Legal Assistants to revise their pay scales on par with the revision of pay scales already declared by the Government of Haryana, a recommendation was again made by the Managing Director before the Board for revision of pay scales of the Law Officers and Legal Assistants on par with the revision of pay scales of their counterparts in the Government Departments. In the Board meeting that took place on 20.09.1988, the aforesaid subject was taken up for discussion by the Board of Directors and they also took a positive decision to rectify such an anomaly and revise the pay scales of the Law Officers and the Legal Assistants of course subject to the approval of the Government of Haryana.
10. The recommendation submitted by the Haryana Financial Corporation based on the decision taken by the Board of Directors was rejected without assigning any reason by the 2nd Respondent.
11. The most important aspect, which has to be decided by this Court, is whether the Government has the authority to issue any instruction with respect to the revision of pay scales of the employees of the Haryana Financial Corporation in the guise of the policy decision under the provisions of Section 39 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.
12. Section 9 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. would read that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of Financial Corporation shall vest in a Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall exercise such powers and discharge their functions with the assistance of an Executive Committee and a Managing Director. Therefore, the Board of Directors have been given an enormous authority to manage the whole affairs of business of the Financial Corporation u/s 9 of the Act.
13. u/s 23 of the said Act, it is only the Financial Corporation which has the authority to appoint officers, advisers and employees for the efficient performance of its functions. It shall also determine the service conditions and remuneration payable to them. It is to be noted that u/s 23 of the Act, the Financial Corporation has been given full power to regulate the service conditions and remuneration of its employees. Of course, under the proviso to Section 23 of the Act, the State Government may specify the class or categories of posts in respect of which appoints may be made by the Board but it is to be noted that the remuneration and other conditions of service of those class or categories of employees also shall be determined by the Board only. No authority has been given to the Government to decide the service conditions of the employees working in the Financial Corporation.
14. It irrelevant to refer to Section 39 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, which reads as follows:
39. Power to give instructions to Financial Corporation on questions of policy.-(1) In the discharge of its functions, the Board shall be guided by such instruction on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government (in consultation with and after obtaining the advice of the Development Bank).
(2) If any dispute arises between the State Government and the Board as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy, the decision of the State Government shall be final.
(3) If the Board fails to carry out the instructions on the. question of policy laid down by the State Government (under Sub-section (1) of this Section or the instructions given to the Board under Sub-section (4) of Section 37-A), the State Government shall have the power to supersede the Board and appoint a new Board in its place to function until a properly constituted Board is set up, and the decision of the State Government as to the grounds for superseding the Board shall not be questioned in any Court.
15. In certain policy matters relating to the discharge of functions of the Financial Corporation, the State Government has the authority to guide by issuing instructions to the Financial Corporation but such instructions even on policy matters shall flow from the State Government only after obtaining advice from the Development Bank by the State Government.
16. The 1st Respondent has issued an instruction to all the heads of departments of Haryana with respect to the revision of pay scales of employees of Marketing Boards/Marketing Committees and other Public Sector Undertakings specifically instructing them to send all proposals for revision of pay scales to the Financial Department for clearance.
17. u/s 39 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the State Government can issue an instruction to the Financial Corporation only with respect to the financial business being transacted by the Financial Corporation. That is the reason why it has been specifically enumerated u/s 39 of the Act that any instruction that is flowed from the State Government on financial matters shall be preceded by an advice given by the Development Bank. The "Development Bank" as defined u/s 2(aa) means the Industrial Development Bank of India. The Industrial Development Bank of India would have nothing to do with the revision of pay scales of the employees of the Financial Corporation. It is concerned with the strategies to be adopted by the Financial Corporation with regard to its financial business transactions. Therefore, a matter relating to revision of pay of the employees of the Financial Corporation cannot be construed as a policy decision which requires the guidance of the State Government after obtaining an advice from the Industrial Development Bank of India.
18. The Haryana Financial Corporation is an independent body which manages its affairs in terms of Section 9 of the Act. The pay structure of the employees and their service conditions are regulated by the State Financial Corporation invoking its power u/s 23 of the said Act. The State Government has noting to do with the regulation of the pay of the employees of the Financial Corporation or the revision of pay of its employees.
19. It appears that the State Government has unnecessarily poked its nose into the affairs of the Haryana Financial Corporation with respect to the revision of pay of its employees. The 1st Respondent has no authority under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to instruct the Haryana Financial Corporation with respect to the revision of pay of its employees.
20. The learned senior counsel Shri R.K. Malik appearing for the Petitioners refers to the decision in Babu Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2000 (5) SLR 353, where it has been held that once the posts were equated, there was no reason to discontinue the equation at a later stage more especially at the time of revision of pay scales.
21. The 3rd Respondent has in fact taken a conscious decision that the Petitioners are entitled to parity of pay with that of their counterparts serving in the Government Departments. Of course, the learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent, taking a marked departure from the decision taken by the Board, would argue that the Petitioners have failed to establish that they are entitled to parity of scale. The arguments submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd Respondent, cannot at all be considered as the 3rd Respondent is not expected to throw its decision that the Petitioners are entitled to parity of pay with that of their counterparts to the wind. The above decision of this Court does not have much bearing on the facts and circumstances of this case.
22. Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent would refer to the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
23. Firstly, the 3rd Respondent cannot now take a stand before this Court quite against the decision that the Petitioners are entitled parity of pay with that of their counterparts serving in the Government of Haryana already taken. Secondly, the Petitioners cannot be expected to produce materials before this Court to establish that they are equal in all respects with that of their counterparts as the 3rd Respondent has taken a decision favourable to the Petitioners. After all the Financial Corporation has taken a decision in its Board meeting based on the recommendation of the Managing Director that the parity of pay will how to be implemented. In the above special facts and circumstances of this case, I find that it would be totally unnecessary to refer in detail those decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
24. It is held that the 3rd Respondent is the sole authority to take a decision as to the revision of pay of its employees. In the guise of an instruction with respect to the policy decision, the 1st Respondent cannot issue an instruction with respect to the pay scales of the employees or the revision of pay scales of the employees of 3rd Respondent-Corporation. The instructions, issued.by the 1st Respondent in the above facts and circumstances of this case, would not bind the 3rd Respondent- Corporation. The 3rd Respondent has virtually surrendered its powers with respect to the revision of pay scales of its employees to the State Government which has no say in the matter. As the State Government has no authority to interfere with the revision of pay scales of the employees of the 3rd RespondentrCorporation, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent has no legal sanctity. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent is liable to be quashed.
25. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the 2nd Respondent and communicated by the 3rd Respondent stand quashed. As the Board has already taken a decision to revise the pay scales of the Petitioners, it shall implement its decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
26. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
