N.J. Pandya, J.
1. All these matters involve a common question relating to Deputy Directors in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics, a Department of the Government of Gujarat. The petitioners in all the three petitions at the relevant time were working as Deputy Directors and there were grievances about pay scale that has been given to them under Desai Pay Commission. As the Commission has been referred to by the State Government and its Officers on various occasions pertaining to the petitioners as Second Pay Commissions (SPC for short), I shall refer to it in that manner only. The Bureau of Economics and Statistics was created in the then Bombay Province in the year 1946 and had continued after merger and reorganisation of the State of Bombay. On coming into existence of the State of Gujarat since May 1990, the Bureau was made a Department of the Government of Gujarat on 19-1-1961. Thereafter, the Gujarat State Statistics Service (GSS) comprising Statistical Personnel working in various Departments of the State Government was constituted on 22-4-1965 and after that date all the posts of the Directorate are born on the cadre of Bureau. The hierarchy is as under:
Director, Deputy Director of Evaluation, Joint Director, Deputy Director (all Class I posts). Research Officers bearing various designations which are Class II posts and others. In the present petitions the question involved is that of Class I Officers, namely, the Deputy Directors.
2. As the aforesaid details indicate, they are at the lowest, amongst the Class I Officers of the Bureau. In the course of time after its creation and as and when there was pay revision of the State Government employees, the Deputy Directors also got upward revision. Throughout this judgment, the petitioners shall be referred to as the Deputy Directors. Whatever revision of pay they got, however, they were not satisfied and they continued to agitate their grievances.
3. The First Pay Commission, popularly known as Sarela Pay Commission came to be appointed and its recommendations were implemented by way of Pay Rules of 1969 and the Deputy Directors, as a result, got the pay scale of 500-1100, referred to in Sarela Pay Commission as Junior Duty Class I Officers. This description and the scale has its own importance in the dispute involved in this petition.
4. Thereafter, Desai Pay Commission came to be appointed, i.e., SPC and there, the Deputy Directors made their strong representation. In the Report of the year 1975 Vol. II, Part I, Chapter 14, Section 111, page 166, the case of the Deputy Directors was dealt with by the SPC and that para is as under:
(iv) Deputy Director (Rs. 500-1100).
6. All the junior Duty Class I posts in the Gujarat State Statistical Service are of the rank of the Deputy Director of the Bureau. The posts can be filled in either by nomination or promotion of Class-11 personnel of the Cadre in the ratio of 1:2. Direct recruitment to the post is made from persons possessing qualifications similar to Senior Duty Class-1 posts and experience of 3 years.
In their written memorandum as well as subsequent oral evidence, the Officers made up a convincing case that they had not received a fair deal on the occasion of the last general pay revision; they pointed out that injustice done to their cadre on the bifurcation of the erstwhile Bombay State perpetuated; they had represented persistently but in vain. The Director also supported their case In the context of general reappraisal of the functions and responsibilities of the entire Directorate, the Commission considers that these posts should be grouped alongwith other Class-1 General (Senior Duty) posts. Accordingly, the post should be in the pay scale of 700-1500.
The SPC had decided to group the Deputy Directors alongwith Class I (General) (Senior Duty) posts and thereafter, had given the pay scale of 700-1500.
5. The Deputy Directors felt that not only the scale given to them by SPC is on lower side, but it is not in keeping with the tenor of the report as quoted above. In other words, according to the Deputy Directors, there is total inconsistency between the narration in the SPC Report and the scale that has been finally given and they continued their agitation by making representation orally and written. The State of Gujarat having accepted the report of the SPC in toto when 1975 Pay Rules came to be implemented, the Deputy Directors got the aforesaid scale of 700-1500 as against the Sarela Pay Commission Scale of 500-1100.
6. Before 1975 Pay Rules came to be promulgated under Article 309 after publication of the SPC Report, the Deputy Directors had made representation to the Chief Secretary on 5-4-1975 as per Annexure 'B'. They had also requested for personal interview. Pursuant to this request they were directed to meet one Shri R.H. Mehta, Officer on Special Duty and Joint Secretary, Finance Department on 8-7-1975. Memorandum Annexure 'C' given to Shri Mehta and the oral submissions made along with it did not find favour and that is how in 1975 Pay Rules the Deputy Directors are given the scale of 700-1500 only.
7. The Government by its circular dated 17-10-1977 had permitted representation to be made within a period of 30 days and availing that opportunity, the Deputy Directors did make a representation dated 1-11-1977 to the Special Secretary, General Adminstration Department as per Annexure 'D'. All throughout before the SPC, before promulgation of 1975 Rules and even thereafter, they had been consistently demanding the pay scale of 1100-1600 as against Sarela Pay Commission pay scale of 500-1100.
8. Over and above submitting the representation to the Special Secretary as stated above, the Deputy Directors had submitted a representation to the then Finance Minister on 9-10-1978 explaining their case in detail. They were granted personal interview also by the Honourable Minister and pursuant thereto minutes of discussion were submitted to the Finance Minister on 8-11-1978. They were granted personal interview by the then Additional Chief Secretary on 7-3-1979. The grounds on which they were claiming the said higher scale of 1100-1600 were set out in the respective representations memoranda and oral submissions, as the case may be from time to time and they are also set out in the petition in para 17 at pages 12 to 14.
9. As a result of all their efforts, they succeeded in getting the said pay scale of 1100-1600. The State Government had before it the grievances of all different grades of servants and therefore, the State Government had appointed a Sub-Committee of the Cabinet Ministers. The Cabinet Sub-Committee had scrutinised all the grievances submitted before it and it was this Committee which had accepted the contention of the Deputy Directors and as a result, G.R. No. PCR 7679/196-M dated 3-7-1979 came 10 be issued and accordingly, with effect from 1-1-1973 pay scale of 1100-1600 was given to the Deputy Directors. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the S.P.C. scales were given to all the Government Employees from the aforesaid dated of 1-1-1973. The G.R. is at Annexure 'F'.
10. The Government not only issued the G.R. but had implemented it and accordingly, the Deputy Directors had received arrears and had started receiving their regular monthly remuneration on that basis.
11. Thereafter, another G.R. No. PCR/7679/204-M dated 8-1-1980 was issued under which the said 3-7-1979 G.R. was cancelled right from the beginning and all pay scale of 700-1500 given by the SPC was restored retrospectively from 1-1-1973. This G R. is Annexure -G'.
12. Being aggrieved by the G.R. dated 8-1-1980, the Deputy Directors had filed Special Civil Application No. 95 of 1980 in this Court. Looking to the aforesaid background in the said Special Civil Application, at the time of admission, an agreement was worked out and the Government had cancelled the Resolution and had decided to give hearing to the Deputy Directors' Association. On that basis, Mr. Justice P. D. Desai, as he then was, passed the order on 20-1-1980 which reads as under:
Mr. M. S. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Government, states that the impugned order incorporated in the Government Resolution at Annexure G stands withdrawn and that five representatives nominated by the petitioners will be given personal hearing by the Committee of two Secretaries (Special Secretary, General Administration Department and Special Secretary Finance Department) within a period or 3 weeks from today. The Committee of Secretaries will, after consideration of the matter, make a report to the Cabinet Sub-committee and the Cabinet Sub-committee in its turn will make recommendation to the Government, which will take appropriate decision in the matter. Until then, the impugned order having been withdrawn, it will not be implemented. On this statement being made Mr. (Girish Patel withdraws the petition at this stage.
The Government issued a G. R. dated 2-2-1980 whereby a Committee was specially constituted for the consideration of Deputy Directors' case. The said G.R. is Annexure 'H'. Accordingly, Deputy Directors were given opportunity and after bearing them, and considering the material that they had produced, alongwith their written submissions and memoranda' and the oral say, finally, the Government stuck to its original stand of giving only the pay scale of 700-1500 and had rejected the request for grant of scale of Rs. 1100-1500. Accordingly, the Coven-merit issued G. R. No. PCR/ 7680/211-M dated 7th May, 1980 and the order was to take effect from 1-1-1973. Simultaneously, another G. R. also came to be issued providing for the recovery of the arrears given to the petitioners in view of the 1979 G. R. referred to earlier and produced at Annexure 'F'. These two G.Rs. dated 7th May, 1980 are produced at Annexure 'K' collectively.
13. The net result, therefore, is that the Deputy Directors monetarily succeeded in getting higher pay scale but finally they lost. Challenging these two G.Rs., the present petition has been filed. Incidentally, the matter came to be dealt with by Mr. P. D. Desai, as he then was, on 16th May, 1980. While admitting the petition and issuing Rule, the learned Judge had issued interim directions whereby the recovery of arrears was stayed and so far as the regular payment was concerned, it was made subject to the condition of additional amounts being deposited in the P. F. account. The interim directions also contained the consequential order providing for both the eventualities, namely, success or failure in the petition.
14. The State Government in response to the Rule in these petitions, had come out with detailed reply and has produced documents also in support of its stand. In view of the common question involved in all the three matters they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. Special Civil Application No, 1393 of 1980 being first in point of time, as well as being complete in ail respect, so far as petitioners and respondents are concerned, it is taken to be the main petition and reference to various annexures and pages is in accordance with the state of the record that is available in the main petition.
15. In paragraph 44 at page' 42, the Deputy Directors have prayed that Aunexure 'K' Resolutions he declared ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional and they be quashed and set aside. The second prayer is to restrain the respondents from implementing, enforcing or giving effect to the impugned G. Rs. Prayer (c) is with regard to permanently staying the recovery and lastly, directing the respondents to pay and to continue to pay to the petitioners pay scales and other allowances as per G.R. dt. 3-7-1979 as if the impugned G.Rs. of 7-5-1990 have not been issued.
16. The prayers have been specifically referred to and more or less, set out in the manner stated in paragraph 44, at the same time summarising them, because on behalf of the respondent-State, a preliminary objection has been taken that the matter cannot be dealt with by a single Judge of this Court and is required to be tried and disposed of by a Division Bench. The submission is based solely on the ground that the petitioners Deputy Directors are challenging the 1975 Rules that came to be formulated and promulgated in view of the SPC. The moment we refer to the aforesaid prayers, it is quite clear that nowhere Rules are challenged. It is only the administrative act of issuing the G.R. that has been challenged and when we refer to and carefully lead the impugned G.R. as well as the earlier G.R. dated 3-7-1979, it is immediately to be found that in both the G. Rs. the Government has categorically stated that the relevant R. 0. P. Rules are to be amended accordingly.
17. The learned A.G.R Mr. Dhaval Dave, is right in submitting that if any change is sought by the Deputy Directors in the Rules by way of challenge to it on any of the grounds available to them, it will become a matter involving validity or otherwise of a Rule promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it will have to go before a Division Bench of this Court. He did concede that the G.Rs. cannot be said to be the Rules by any stretch of imagination. The G.Rs. are not issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Once this distinction between the G.R. and the Rule is understood, in my opinion, there is no room for controversy about the matter required to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court. The preliminary point with regard to the hearing of the matter and its dismissal by a single Judge of the Court raised on behalf of the respondent is, therefore, rejected.
18. The second preliminary objection that Mr. Dave had was about the competence of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the State Government to exercise its legislative function. Closely scrutinised, in my opinion, this submission also does not have any force in view of the aforesaid factual background and more particularly, the reliefs that are claimed. The issuance of G.Rs. not being an exercise of legislative function and only the G.Rs. being under challenge, it cannot be said that the Court is required to issue directions about the exercise of legislative function.
19. 3rd July, 1979 GR. was succeeded by a G.R. dated 7-5-1980. The prayer is that latter of the two be struck down and direction sought is that former G.R, may continue to be implemented. On issuing the former G.R. the Government did implement the same though in the G.R. dated 3-7-1979, there is a reference to the need of amending the 1975 Rules. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that during the brief interval that 3-7-1979 G. R. was holding the field, 1975 Rules were not amended. So far as the State is concerned, obviously, there is no need to amend the 1975 Rules because, on issuing latter G.R. dated 7-5-1980, the position was made to prevail on the line of 1975 Rules as they were.
20. Direction as sought in Clause (d) of paragraph 44 of the petition, will certainly have the effect of bringing about a change in the pay scale, but then, this would be the result of striking down the latter G.R. dated 7-5-1980, if the prayer contained in Clause (A) of paragraph 44 is granted. This aspect is being dealt with from the point of view of the preliminary objection only. Merits of the case are yet to be gone into.
21. If prayer Clause (A) is not granted, obviously, the act of the Government to revise the 1975 Rules would be upheld. Viewed from that angle, it can be said that so far as the Deputy Directors are concerned, the pay scale is directed to be 700-1500 only. In order to appreciate this conclusion, one has to look to internal page 4 of G. R. dated 7th May, 1980 running page 109 Annexure 'K' to the petition. The words used are '...in respect of category of posts of Deputy Director under General Administration Department as mentioned in this resolution should be revised as indicated in column 4 of the Schedule given below..' (emphasis supplied). These wordings are used, even though, as per G. R. dated 3-7-1979 Annexure 'F' page 69 to 71 1975 Rules were yet be amended as indicated in para 6 thereof (page 70).
22. In other words, on Rules being framed and promulgated under Article 309, wherever any changes are to be brought about, the Government declares its intention to do so by a Resolution. Dealing with the Resolution in a given litigation on the point of its validity and declare it to be either valid or invalid and thereafter, passing consequential orders, therefore, in my opinion, cannot be said to be issuing directions with regard to legislative functions of the State. This submission, is therefore, rejected.
23. It may be mentioned that interestingly both the sides are relying on a decision given by a Division Bench of this Court reported in : (1981)IILLJ64Guj (M. G. Patel v. State of Gujarat) where speaking for the Division Bench Mr. Justice M. P. Thakkar, as he then was, had entered into detailed discussion and also contentions with regard to adequacy or otherwise of a particular pay scale granted under the SPC. As per the accepted legal position which is prevalent even today, what was done by the Court was to set out its own reasoning and had recommended to the State Government to consider the recommendation made by the SPC in respect of the petitioners of that matter and allow the cadres. In the light of the reasoning contained in the judgment and thereafter had issued certain directions as contained in para 5 of the judgment at page 238 of the report. On going through these directions, it can easily be seen that the Court had set parameters that were to be borne in mind while fixing the pay scale, thus, admitting its limitations with regard to the functions as manifested by Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judges did issue necessary directions so that while exercising the legislative function the State Government may not loose sight of many important and relevant material that must enter its thought process at the time when Rules are framed. In other words, on behalf of the petitioners also learned Advocate Mr. Girish Patel admitted that the Court cannot direct that a particular pay scale be given, but, it can certainly issue directions whereby, the Government while exercising its legislative functions of framing pay fixation rules will have to act, according to the direction of the Court and do justice to the litigants before the Court.
24. The learned A.G.P. had cited : (1981)ILLJ271SC (Jiwan Kishore v. Delhi Transport Corporation) where it has been held that so far as the framing of Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution are concerned, under Article 226, the High Court cannot even indirectly require the Executive to exercise its rule-making power. Accordingly, the Court cannot even indirectly require the Executive to exercise its rule-making power in any way, nor can the Court assume to itself a supervisory role over the rule-making power of the Executive under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. About this there cannot be any quarrel. However, as stated earlier, the Court can certainly set out with reason the various relevant material which is required to be borne in mind while framing the Rules. So far as the point involved in all the petitions right now is concerned, except to the extent of considering the validity of the impugned resolution, there is no need for this Court to issue any direction. While issuing (he 3-7-1979 G.R. various materials have been kept in mind by the State and likewise for the impugned G.R. If the Deputy Directors succeed in their challenge to the impugned G.R., the Government has already acted as per the earlier G.R. There is, therefore, no need whatsoever, for the Court to issue any direction except the consequential one as set out in Clause (d) of para 44 of the petition. The said Supreme Court decision, therefore, would not help the State.
25. By now, the controversy involved is quite clear. The case as put forth on behalf of the Deputy Directors by learned Advocate Mr. Girish Patel is that the SPC in its report quoted hereinabove has very succinctly dealt with the plight of the Deputy Directors and has gone to the extent of noting that the officers have not received a fair deal on the occasion of the last general pay revision, i.e., Sarela Pay Commission. Therefore, it has decided to group the service alongwith other Class I General (Senior duty) posts. The moment this nomenclature which is unique in the sense that 'it is used in connection with the Deputy Directors only and nowhere combination of the two description is to be found is given, the pay scale 700-1500 given; thereafter is nothing else but an inaccuracy that has crept in. In other words., the final conclusion is not in keeping with the reasoning of the SPC.
26. In support of this submission, learned Advocate Mr. Patel had referred to the report extensively with a view to making out that the scale of 700-1500 is given almost uniformally to Class-I (General) category Officers of the State. Class-1 (Sr. duty) Officers have been given much higher scale and when both the descriptions are used together in connection with the Deputy Directors, the effect will certainly be that of a pay scale higher than 700-1500, if not (he scale that has been given to Class-1 Senior Duty Officers. According to learned Advocate Mr. Patel, therefore, Class-1 General (Senior duty) does contemplate a special treatment so far as the fixation of pay is concerned and it has to be higher than the two categories and accordingly 1100-1600 given by the State as per G.R. date 3-7-1979 Annexure ?F' is correct. In fact, this is the salary that the Deputy Directors have been asking for.
27. In support of his submission summarised above learned Advocate Mr. Patel had drawn my attention to page 61 where at Clause (ii) pay of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, at page 66(ii) Textile Expert and on that page itself Clause (iv) and (v) Superior Quality Controller and Director of State Design Centre have been dealt with. Incidentally, they were all getting under Sarela Pay Commission pay scale of 500-1100, as that is the pay scale given to Class-1 given pay scale of 700-1500 as that is the pay scale given to Class-1 (General) Officers. There are various such instances from which the aforesaid submission of learned Advocate Mr. Patel can be substantiated that wherever Class-1 (General) is used the pay scale is 700-1500. Class-I (Senior) Officers have been given pay scale of 900-1500. The combined effect of Class-1 General (Sr. duty) according to Mr. Patel is, therefore, to give the Deputy Directors a scale which is higher than the pay scale of both the categories of Officers referred to above.
28. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel had referred to two instances where Senior duty Class-1 Officers who were drawing under Sarela Pay Commission pay scale of 700-1250 have been given pay scale 1100-1600. This is to be found at page 146(iii) in connection with Deputy Director of Accounts and Treasuries. Contrasting with this is next entry of Junior Duty Officers who were drawing under Sarela Pay Commission 500-1250, has been given by the SPC the scale of 700-1500.
29. In this instance according to Mr. Patel when Deputy Directors have been given the singular description of Class-1 General (Sr. duty) the least that they can get is the scale of 1100-1600.
30. Apart from this intrinsic material brought out from the report of the SPC by learned Advocate Mr. Patel, he had tried to justify the claim of the Deputy Directors on the accepted method of fixation of pay scale. There are six factors that are generally borne in mind while fixing the pay scale. They are (1) Nature of organisation and its importance (2) Hierarchy in organisation (3) Recruitment Rules, qualifications etc. (4) Nature of duties and responsibilities (5) Avenues of promotions (6) Vertical and horizontal parity and equal pay for equal work.
31. In any organisational set up there is a pyramid like structure and therefore, two parties mentioned above coupled with the remaining structures can be summarised as relativities. The SPC report is replete with the use of all or any of the aforesaid expressions one to 7, as also the expression of relativity. In connection with each of them, according to Mr. Patel, the claim of 1100-1600 is fully justified. This argument is advanced not with a view to get a direction of the Court that the State Government should fix the salary of the Deputy Directors at 1100-1600. This exercise is gone into with a view to make out a case that the G. R. dated 3-7-1979 as eminently justified and what followed it, that is the impugned G. R. was wholly uncalled for and therefore, not only unwarranted but is totally unconstitutional and beyond the competence.
32. So far as the importance of the organisation is concerned, the paragraph of the SPC quoted hereinabove itself takes note of it. For running the Government itself as well as for planning future development and working out the modalities as well as its methodology, importance of statistics can well be appreciated and therefore, the importance of the bureau where the Deputy Directors are working can never be overestimated. Hierarchy-wise apart from usual Class III and Class IV employees, it has Class II Research Officers, above whom is the post of Joint Directors Class I (Sr. Duty), above which, we have Director of Evaluation and at the top is of course the Director.
33. Sarela Pay Commission gave for Class II Officers the pay scale of 350-850 and for Deputy Director it was 500-1100. The SPC has given to Class II Officers, the pay scale of 650-1200 and to Deputy Director it is 700-1500. Under Sarela Pay Commission, therefore, there was a gap of Rs. 150/- in the starting basic salary, while under SPC there is a difference of only Rs. 50/-. The vertical parity is thus disturbed and hierarchy-wise also, hardly any difference is to be noticed. When this difference is further considered in light of the Recruitment Rules and required qualifications, the difference becomes very prominent.
34. Qualification required for Deputy Director is Post-Graduation and same is the educational qualification requirement for Joint Director and the only difference is that of the length of experience between the two.
35. In this background, if one compares the pay structure of Deputy Director with that of the Joint Director under Sarela Pay Commission, it was respectively 500-1100 and 1050-1500. No doubt, there is a gap of Rs. 550/ - in the basic pay of these two categories of posts. Precisely, for this reason, it may be appreciated that SPC in its report quoted above, has noted that the Deputy Directors have not been given a fair-deal. Under SPC it is to be noticed that the gap has further increased to Rs. 600/- so far as the basic pay is concerned. However, as prayed for by the Deputy Directors, the scale of 1100-1600 is given to them reducing the intial wide gap and in relation to the hierarchy and vertical parity, normally would be restored so far as the Class II Officers and between the two categories of Class I Officers are concerned. On the one hand between Class II Officers and Deputy Directors Class I, the gap would increase and correspondingly, there will be reduction in the gap between the basic salaries of Deputy Directors and Junior Directors.
36. For nature of duties, one may refer to pages 63 & 64, para 5 of internal pages 4 & 5 of the representation that the Deputy Directors had given to the Special Secretary to the Government dated on 1-11-1977 and it is annexed as Annexure 'D'. It may also be noted that there is a time gap of about 10 years after which only a person in the rank of Deputy Director can aspire for higher promotion.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the Deputy Directors have succeeded in making out a case in their favour. Looking to the tenor of the report of SPC, there is inaccuracy with regard to the pay fixation and that was subsequently corrected by the State Government on the report of the Cabinet Sub-Committee and accordingly, the Deputy Directors were correctly given the pay scale of Rs. 1100-1600.
38. The second G. R. which came to be issued is sought to be justified only on the ground that the Cabinet Sub-Commitee was not the body authorised to bring about this change and only a decision taken by the Council of Ministers in the Cabinet alone would have resulted into issuance of the G. R. and therefore, the first G. R. that came to be issued, was an unauthorised act. This could be gathered from papers which are shown to the Court by the learned A.G P. Mr. Dave and they are also produced at pages 170-180 and other relevant papers attached to it going upto page 204. The second ground is that the decision taken by the State Government was to implement the recommendation of the SPC in toto and not to make departure from its recommendation. Accordingly, therefore, when the SPC had recommended the pay scale of 700-1500, there was no question of the Deputy Directors getting the scale of 1100-1600.
39. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the then Chief Minister Shri B. J. Patel on or about 7-10-1980, obviously, the second G.R. came to be issued and that action was sought to be justified by the State Government understandably. Precisely, for this reason when pursuant to the direction issued in the earlier writ petition, i'. e., Spl. C. A. No. 95 of 1980, when the Deputy Directors came to be heard by the Committee specially formed for the purpose, they rejected the submission of the Deputy Directors on these two counts. The report in its entirety is produced from pages 181 to 204 running into 24 pages in all. In fairness to the members of the Committee, it must be said that they have examined the question from different angles but, only in the background of the aforesaid line of reasoning adopted by the then Honourable the Chief Minister upto page 18 of the report, i.e., page 198 of the compilation, where sub-para F of para 10 ends, the Committee members have recorded various arguments advanced and submissions made. Thereafter, they have recorded the facts which according to them, were required to be taken into consideration and by that they have approached the problem with the aid of comparison so that the correct import and meaning of the nomenclature used by the SPC, namely, Class I General (Senior Duty) be ascertained. This approach cannot be faulted with.
40. However, in doing so, for example at page 20 of the Report running page 200, they have given comparative table of the pay scale of Under Secretary to that of the Deputy Director the pre-SPC scale and SPC scale which are to be side by side in the table. Obviously, there is upward revision and that fact, in my opinion, cannot be pressed into service for ascertaining the correct meaning of the aforesaid term. Instead of appreciating the fact that in the entire SPC report. Class I General (Sr. Duty) term is used only in connection with the Deputy Directors on the basis of the fact that in the Bureau of Statistics Class I posts are divided in Class I Senior and Class I Junior and when Class I Senior posts include the post of Director and Joint Director, the words 'Senior Duty' have been used for the petitioners in the specific context of classification of Class I posts in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics. It is obvious that there was no need for the SPC to resort to this device because the distinction between Class I-Senior and Class I Junior was much too well-known. Otherwise also, scale-wise there was considerable difference between the two and this difference could be narrowed, only if a higher scale is given other than the one given to Class I General posts, the scale being 700-1500. This has been already noted in the course of the discussion earlier.
41. The Committee Members at page 21 in sub-para (g) have clearly accepted that scale of Rs. 700-1500 given to Class I General Category Officers. Had this been made a starting point, the obvious conclusion in my opinion, would be that if along with Class I General is also used the Senior duty and scale higher than 700-1500 and lower than the scale of Class I Senior duty posts had to be given to the Deputy Directors, that is precisely what the Cabinet Committee had recommended. Not only that, but it was confirmed during the question hour in the Legislative Assembly when a stared question in this connection was put by the Honourable Member of the Assembly to the then Honourable the Finance Minister. For this reference may be made to Official Publication of the Legislative Assembly giving details of the stared question put during the 8th sessions of the 5th Legislative Assembly of the State. At question No. 43, the Honourable Member Shri Karsandas Soneri had raised this question and in reply, amongst other details, at serial No. 8, Deputy Directors have been specifically referred to and in answer to the question as to what decisions have been taken at serial No. 1 at page 50 of that application is to be found the decision taken in connection with the Deputy Directors. While reiterating the Government's stand that no claim made in respect of pay which is found to be above the scale given by the SPC is to be entertained. In case of the Deputy Directors it was found that the scale given by the SPC is not in consonance with the write up of the SPC and hence, inaccurancy in grating scale of Rs. 700-1500 was removed by giving scale of Rs. 1100-1600. It may be recalled that this was as a result of the exercise of the Cabinet Sub-Committee and in that reply itself at page 51, with regard to employee of Mental Hospital, as the decision was to be taken which will have the effect of grant of pay scale higher than the one recommended by the SPC, their case was referred to the Cabinet. This clearly indicates that in setting right the inaccuracy in case of the Deputy Directors, the Government's stand was that reference to Cabinet is not necessary. Therefore, the stand now taken by the State Government is not keeping with the position to be found when the first G.R. was issued.
42. The Members of the Committee in their Report at page 22 had tried to ascertain the approach of the SPC with regard to the parity being maintained in case of promotions and for that general scheme was indenitifisd by the Committee numbers, according to which, promotees from the scale of 900-1500 and 1100-1600 could be respectively prompted to 1400-1800 and 1600-2000.
43. Thus, at page 20, i. e., running page 200, it is noticed that the Committee members have confined themselves to the Department of Bureau of Economics and Statistics when they considered the use of words 'senior duty' and while trying to understand the additional words 'senior duty' they have referred to the general scheme of promotion and the pay scale to be given to promotees of one scale to the other from the entire report. However, they have lost sight of the fact that inspite of this general scheme, which they have in my opinion, correctly identified, the unusual description applied to the Deputy Directors, namely. Class I General (Senior Duty) has not been correctly appreciated at all. On the contrary, while concluding their report at page 23, running page 203, para 11, and accepting that 700-1500 pay scale is to be given to Class-1 General category of officers, they have tried to explain away the use 'Senior Duty' by saying that it is used only to maintain the allotment of Class-1 General scale 700-1500 to them, because the Deputy Directors cadre was otherwise classified as Class-1 Junior under respective Recruitment Rules.
44. The Recruitment Rules were never to come in the way of the SPC, while giving a particular scale. There have been several instances in the SPC indicating that when the SPC wanted to give the pay scale of 700-1500 whatever be the classification of the concerned Officers either in the Department or if at all, as stated by the members of the Committee, under the Recruitment Rules, the SPC has straightway mentioned that a given class of officers be given pay scale of Class-1 General Officers. In other words, Class-1 General Officers have been given pay scale of 700-1500 only and by way of illustration from SPC itself various instances have been quoted hereinabove.
All told, therefore, it is quite clear that the report of the Committee trying to explain away the use of the words 'Senior duty' alongwith Class-1 General itself is faulty. The second G. R. being the result of it, it cannot be sustained.
45. The petitions are, therefore, allowed. It is declared that the impugned G. Rs. dated 7-5-1980 (Annex. K collectively) are ultra vires, illegal, and unconstitutional and they are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners the pay scales and other allowances as per the G.R. of 3-7-1979, as if G. r.s of 7-5-1980 have not been issued. The arrears of pay which have become due and payable to the petitioners, shall be computed and paid to the petitioners within 3 months from the date of the receipt of writ of this order. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule in each matter is made absolute.