Civil Writ Petition No.19050 of 2004 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19050 of 2004 Date of decision: September 29, 2010. Mohinder Parkash & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Ram Kumar Malik, Senior Advocate with Shri Surya Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Shri Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Petitioners pray that the action of the respondents in reducing their salary on taking over of their school by the State of Haryana, be set aside and their pay be protected as was being drawn by them earlier. Briefly stated, on 25.4.1984, the State of Haryana took over the management of the Haryana High School, Sonepat, where petitioners, except petitioner No.10, were employed as Teachers, and it became a Government School. Similarly, Public High School, Juan, District Sonepat had been taken over by the State of Haryana on 27.2.1980, where petitioner No.10 was employed as a Teacher. All employees of these schools became employees of the Government. The Government had issued communications, dated 25.4.1984 (Annexures P-1) and dated 27.2.1980 Civil Writ Petition No.19050 of 2004 -: 2 :- (Annexure P-2), wherefrom it is evident that both these schools were taken over by the Government. In both these communications, Annexures P-1 and P-2, it has been specifically stated as under:- “The staff will be given the grade as approved by the Government and their pay will be fixed in accordance with Government Rules.” It is stated that relying upon the above stated condition, services of all the petitioners, 14 in number, were protected. It is stated that three years later, Government issued instructions, Annexure P-3 re-fixing the pay of the petitioners. The relevant portion on which the reliance was placed by the officials of the Education Department to re-fix the salary of the staff of the schools taken over by the Government reads as under:- “The teacher whose pay is less than the minimum of the Government scale should be given minimum of Government scale in other cases where the pay is more than the minimum of the Government scale, he should continue to draw the same pay subject to the condition that it may not exceed the maximum of the grade, the amount of his pay which he may be getting in excess of the minimum of the Government pay scale being treated as personal pay and adjusted in his future increment provided.” There is inherent fallacy of application of the above stated Government instructions. The following illustration shall explain the grievance of the petitioners. Say, for example, if school was taken over on 1.1.1980 and the employee was drawing basic pay of Rs.660/- in the pay Civil Writ Petition No.19050 of 2004 -: 3 :- scale of Rs.585-1050, his pay was protected as Rs.660/- and thereafter increment was awarded. This was according to the terms of the take-over, Annexures P-1 and P-2. Later on, relying upon instructions Annexure P-3, Education Department took Rs.585/- as the initial basic pay at the time of take over, and considered Rs.75/- earned as increment as personal pay, giving pay protection, and till the employee could earn Rs.75/- by rendering further service, by securing notional increments, payment of actual increments was denied. Thus, no further increment was awarded to him. The course adopted by the respondents is not only highly unjust but is irrational too. The employees whose services had been taken over, their salaries were to be protected and for rendering each year's service, they are entitled to increments till they reach at the maximum of the scale. Hence, the present petition is allowed and the action of the respondents whereby salary of the petitioners was reduced, is quashed. The basic pay which the petitioners were drawing at the time of take-over of the schools, shall stand protected and thereafter for each year, employee will be entitled to earn increments in the scale in which he was placed. It is stated that no recovery has been effected from the petitioners as the same was stayed by this Court by passing interim order in favour of the petitioners. However, the petitioners are held entitled to the arrears which are due to them. The amount, if any recovered from the petitioners, shall be refunded to them in view of the ratio of law laid down in Budh Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (CWP No.2799 of 2008 decided on 16.08.2010). [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 29, 2010. Judge kadyan