C.W.P. No. 282 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 282 of 1991 Date of decision: 1.12.2010 Krishan Lal and others ..............Petitioners Versus Haryana State Electricity Board and another ................Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioners None for the respondents. RANJAN GOGOI,J.(oral) The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to fix the pay scales of the petitioners as per revised option in terms of the circular dated 18.4.1988 (Annexure P-2). The brief facts that are required to be noticed are as follows:- The petitioners are employees of the Haryana State Electricity Board. According to the petitioners, by office order dated 19.8.1987 the benefit of fixation of revised scale under para 6 of the said office order was made available to such employees who chose to elect the revised scale of pay from the date of their next/subsequent increment to them after 1.1.1986 but not later than 31.12.1987 in respect of the post held by them as on 1.1.1986. According to the petitioners, they had exercised their option and accordingly their pay was fixed. However, by a subsequent office order dated 13.10.1987 the benefit of fixation of pay in terms of the earlier order dated 19.8.1987 was made available to all employees who chose to elect their revised scale of pay from a date after 1.1.1986 but not later than C.W.P. No. 282 of 1991 2 31.12.1987. The petitioners exercised their option under the said office order dated 13.10.1987. It may be specifically noticed at this stage that in terms of para 2 of the office order dated 13.10.1987 option was required to be exercised within three months and such option could be exercised afresh even by those Board's employees who had also exercised their option prior to the issuance of the office order dated 13.10.1987. By a subsequent office order dated 18.4.1988 the Board, on due consideration of the matter, in its meeting held on 28.3.1988 decided to further modify the earlier office orders dated 19.8.1987 and 13.10.1987 to extend the benefit of para 6 of the office order dated 19.8.1987 to such employees who opt to switch over to the revised scales of pay from the date of their next/subsequent increments falling after Ist January, 1986 but not later than 31st May 1988 in respect of the post held by them as on 1.1.1986. In terms of para 3 of the said order, employees were required to exercise their options within three months and such options once exercised were to be final. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had not opted to be covered by the benefit conferred by the third office order dated 18.4.1988 as the same was not notified/circulated. As repeated demands raised on this score had not been responded to, the writ petition in question was filed. The respondents have filed their written statement in the case which has been duly perused. A reading of the said written statement would clearly show that according to the respondents the office order dated 18.4.88 was put on the notice Board(s) which will constitute adequate circulation of the same. Furthermore, according to the respondents, the representations of C.W.P. No. 282 of 1991 3 the petitioners were duly examined and the same were found to be not acceptable. No reasons for the said conclusion, howsoever, is disclosed in the written statement filed. The above stand of the respondents, as mentioned in the written statement is not acceptable The office order dated 18.4.1988, by providing for extension of the date for exercise of option upto 31.5.1988, had introduced a benefit to the employees of the Board which could not have been denied/refused on the ground that the petitioners had not exercised their options within the time stipulated, which reason would be in built in the stand taken by the respondents. A beneficial provision introduced by an employer cannot be allowed, by a court of law, to be defeated on such technicalities as any such action would have the effect of placing persons junior to the petitioners on a higher pay, as asserted by the petitioners. Consequently and in the light of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to act accordingly and grant consequential benefits as may be due to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order or a certified copy thereof. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE December 1, 2010 RSK NOTE : Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No