CWP No.12048 of 1993 : 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 18.01.2010 Subhash Chander Vs. State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Ravi Verma, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was working as Personal Assistant (hereinafter referred to as the “PA”) to Director, Primary Education, in the Directorate of Education in the State of Haryana. According to the averments made in the writ petition, there are three posts of Directors i.e. The Director, Higher Education; the Director, Secondary Education and the Director, Primary Education. All the Directors are carrying the same status, pay scales and common seniority. The posts are even interchangeable. The petitioner and other PAs working with the Directorate of Education's, Haryana, made a joint representation dated 12.06.1989 for grant of special pay to them on account of their nature of duties. Some PAs working in the Directorate, Health Services who also claimed similar benefits filed CWP No.476 of 1987 for a direction of grant of special pay. The said writ petition was CWP No.12048 of 1993 : 2 disposed of vide order dated 05.10.1988 with a direction to decide the representation. Having failed to comply with the orders passed by this Court, a COCP No. 24 of 1988 came to be filed by the writ petitioners in that case before this Court. The aforesaid contempt petition came up for consideration before this Court and learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the matter in depth, passed the following direction:- “I hereby direct the respondents to grant to the petitioners the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1250/- with Rs.75/- P.M as special pay with effect from 12th July, 1982, and the selection grade of Rs.700-1250 to the Senior Scale Stenographers, positively within one month from today. With regard to the claim for amendment of the necessary service rules for equating the posts of Personal Assistants with Deputy Superintendents for promotion to the posts of Superintendents etc. they may seek their remedy by way of separate proceedings, if so advised.” It appears that keeping in view the aforesaid direction, though without saying so in the order dated 11.4.1990 (Annexure P-2), the State Government sanctioned grant of special pay at the rate of Rs.150/- p.m to the PAs attached with the Director, Higher Education; the Director, Secondary Education and the Director, Primary CWP No.12048 of 1993 : 3 Education with effect from 01.04.1990. There is specific stipulation in this order that the sanction has been accorded with the concurrence of the Finance Department. However, the order has been withdrawn vide order dated 18.08.1993 (Annexure P-6) on the ground that the pay and other allowances are admissible to the government employees as per specific orders of the Government. It is stated that the Haryana Government has not sanctioned the special pay to those of P.As attached with the Director of Primary Education, Haryana. Hence, the drawl of special pay without proper sanction was irregular and inadmissible. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 18.8.1993 (Annexure P-6) amount earlier paid as special pay from the period from 1.4.1990 to 1.10.1991 is sought to be recovered. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The State of Haryana in its reply has reiterated the stand taken in the impugned order and stated that special pay could be granted to the petitioners with the sanction of the State Government. It is further stated that the order dated 11.4.1990 (Annexure P-2) was substituted by another order Annexure R-1. I have perused the order Annexure R-1. Vide the aforesaid order dated 11.4.1990, the sanction was accorded for grant of special pay at the rate of Rs.150/- pm to the P.As attached with the Directorate of Higher Education, alone. Based upon the aforesaid document, it is argued by Mr. Kundu that since Annexure P-2 whereby earlier sanction for payment of Special Pay of Rs.150/- pm was accorded to the petitioner, stands withdrawn by virtue CWP No.12048 of 1993 : 4 of the impugned order. It is surprising to find that both these documents are of the same date. One fails to understand the authenticity of the Annexure R-1 when it is also of the same date when Annexure P-2 was issued. Memo No.3/98/84-Edu. III (4) dated 11.4.1990, Annexure P-2, was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education Department, addressed to the Director of Higher Education, copy whereof was forwarded to the Accountant General, Haryana, whereas the later document is also from the same Commissioner and Secretary, addressed to the same authority and even the Memo. Number is the same. How under the same memo. and date, two different orders could have been passed. The respondents have also not disputed the validity of Annexure P-2. It is stated that it was substituted by Annexure R-1. The validity of one of the document is in question. Be that as it may, in the writ petition filed by some of the similarly situated persons, a specific direction was issued by this Court vide the judgment dated 05.10.1988 to grant special pay at the rate of Rs.75/- pm which was admissible at the relevant time. It appears that Annexure P-2 was issued in implementation of the aforesaid direction, although, nothing has been mentioned in the order itself. Even vide Annexure R-1, the document relied upon by the respondents similar allowance has been granted to the P.As attached with the Directorates of Higher and Secondary Education with effect from 1.4.1990. The specific averments made in the writ petition that the posts are of equal CWP No.12048 of 1993 : 5 status with common seniority and are interchangeable, are admitted in paragraph 2 of the reply. The respondent-State cannot treat differently the similarly situated persons. In case of one of the Directors of equal status, special pay has been granted to his P.A., whereas similar relief has been denied to the petitioner whose status is also similar. The action of the respondent-State is discriminatory, illegal and invalid. Apart from the above, directions of this Court have to be complied with. Withdrawal of the benefits conferred upon the petitioner, who is similarly situated as was the P.A. of Director, Higher and Secondary Education, is totally uncalled for. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order, Annexure P-6, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the benefit of special pay to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1990 till the date he remained on the same post, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. No costs. 18.01.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES