CWP No.9009 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 17.05.2010 Gurbachan Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.KL Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. RS Kundu, Addl. A. G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the writ petitions have been supplied to him. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. The petitioner was working as Clerk in the Municipal Committee, Thanesar and on abolition of the Octroi Department, he was absorbed in the department of Industrial Training at Kurukshera on 31.12.1999. His pay scale at the time of absorption was 4000-6000 which was the first ACP of the functional pay scale of 3050-4590/-. The petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. At the time of his retirement he was entitled to second ACP. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the retiral benefits, rather recovery has been CWP No.9009 of 2010 2 ordered vide the impugned orders. He is also claiming benefit of second ACP which was due at the time of his retirement. In this manner, the petitioner has challenged in the present writ petitions the action taken vide orders Annexures P-8, P-9 and P-10. The issue raised in the writ petitions is no more res integra. A similar issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Employees of the Octroi Branch of the Municipal committee. On consideration of the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Deepak Sood and others, (Civil Appeal No.4446 of 2008) decided on 15.07.2008, made the following observations:- “Therefore, in the series of judgments given by this Court the view has been taken that in case of a transfer/absorption from one department to another or from public sector to State though the benefit of the seniority may be denied to the incumbent but not for any other benefits like pay fixation and for the pensionary benefits. Therefore, when the benefit of past service rendered in the parent department was given for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits, there is no reason why the past service should not be counted for grant of ACP Grade. Consequently, we are of the view that the view taken by the Division Bench of the CWP No.9009 of 2010 3 High Court in the impugned judgment and order is correct and there is no ground to interfere in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.” The aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the facts of the present writ petitions. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders Annexures P-8, P-9 and P-10 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the period of service rendered by the petitioners in the Municipal Committee for all intents and purposes except the seniority. The claim of the petitioners with regard to fixation of pay, arrears and retiral benefits be also determined and paid within a period of four months in accordance with law from the date a copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. No costs. 17.05.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE