Civil Writ Petition No.16338 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Civil Writ Petition No.16338 of 1992 Date of Order: 29.07.2011 Haryana State Electricity Board, and another ...Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ambala and another ..Respondents (2) Civil Writ Petition No.8788 of 1991 Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and others ...Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Hissar and another. ...Respondents (3) Civil Writ Petition No.9114 of 1991 Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and others ...Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Hissar and another. ...Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.16338 of 1992 -2- (4) Civil Writ Petition No.9115 of 1991 Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and others ...Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Hissar and another. ...Respondents (5) Civil Writ Petition No.1229 of 1995 Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and others ...Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Rohtak and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.O.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16338 of 1992, 8788 of 1991, 9114, 9115 of 1991 and 1229 of 1995 as they involve adjudication of identical questions of law and fact. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.16338 of 1992. The petitioners lay challenge to an award of the Labour Court dated 07.04.1992. The respondent No.2-workman (hereinafter referred to as “private respondent) filed a petition, before the Labour Court, claiming that special pay of Rs.30/- per month granted as a Civil Writ Petition No.16338 of 1992 -3- Lower Divisional Clerk (L.D.C) should have been merged into his basic pay upon promotion as a Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.). The private respondent placed reliance upon Rule 4.4(9) of Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume-I, Part-I to support his plea. The petitioners opposed the petition but vide order dated 07.04.1992, the Labour Court accepted the petition, passed an award and directed payment of Rs.7150.40 paise as arrears of wages from 23.03.1979 to 30.04.1988. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the amount has been paid to the private respondent and in all possibility he may have retired but as the special pay was granted temporarily, it could not be merged in the basic pay. It is further argued that reliance upon Rule 4.4 is entirely misplaced in view of the instructions dated 04.05.1982, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana with respect to Note-9 of Rule 4.4. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned award. As per Note-9 to Rule 4.4, an employee is entitled to a merger of special pay at the time of promotion. The petitioner has failed to place any material before the Labour Court to show that Note-9 to Rule 4.4. of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume-I, Part-I does not apply to the case of the private respondent. Reference to instructions Annexure P-2 is entirely misplaced. The private respondent was admittedly granted a special pay for more than three years and was, therefore, entitled to a merger of his special pay with the basic pay. Even otherwise, as the private respondent has already been paid the Civil Writ Petition No.16338 of 1992 -4- amount and may have even retired by now, the impugned award does not call for interference. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. July 29, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE