C.W.P. No.15764 of 2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15764 of 2002 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: JULY 17, 2009 S.S.Parmar and others .....PETITIONERS Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam,Panchkula and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram,Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Amardeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Arvind Seth, Advocate, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Petitioners No.1 to 48, who were employees of the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam and petitioner No.49, who was an employee of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, have filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to pay them the benefit of Special Pay and Sterilization increment while calculating the pay for the purpose of pension, by quashing the earlier orders passed by them. It is the case of the petitioners that the said benefit was illegally denied to them by totally ignoring the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.G.Walia and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (LPA No.160 of 2004, decided on 7.10.2005). On 14.5.2009, after hearing the C.W.P. No.15764 of 2002 (O&M) -2- counsel for the parties, the following order was passed by this Court:- “During the course of hearing and while going through the reply filed by Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Chief Accounts Officer (Pension), HVPNL, Panchkula to C.M. No.5845 of 2008, it has been noticed that the petitioners, except petitioner No.36, who were appointed prior to 1.11.1966, have been denied the benefit of Special Pay and Sterilization increment while calculating the pay for the purpose of pension, by totally ignoring the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.G. Walia and others vs. State of Haryana and others, LPA No.160 of 2004, decided on 7.10.2005, which was upheld by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 3.7.2006, on the ground that those judgments were given in individual cases of Shri O.P. Sobti and has not been adopted in general by the respondent-Nigam by issuing necessary notification for dealing with other cases of similar nature. Counsel for the respondents could not point out that in the Division Bench judgment in K.G. Walia's case (supra), it was specifically mentioned that the said benefit was only meant for individual case. In my opinion, the said reply filed by the aforesaid respondent is contrary to the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RSJ 38 and subsequently the government Instructions dated May 2, 2002, which say that once a case has been decided by the Court of law in case of an employee, the said benefit should be given to all the similarly situated employees. Thus, in view of this factual and legal position, Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Chief Accounts Officer (Pension), HVPNL, Panchkula is directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing to explain the situation and to show cause as to why the averments made by him in the reply be not taken as disrespect to the decision given by this Court. Adjourned to 25.5.2009.” Thereafter, the case was taken up on 25.5.2009. On that date, C.W.P. No.15764 of 2002 (O&M) -3- counsel for the respondents sought short adjournment so that the Board of Directors of HVPNL and UHBVN may take decision in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.G. Walia's case (supra). On the request of the learned counsel, the case was adjourned for today. Today, two separate affidavits have been filed by Managing Directors of HVPNL and UHBVN, which have been taken on record. By CM No.11519 of 2009, Managing Director of HVPNL, Panchkula has filed the affidavit dated 14.7.2009 along with decision of the Board of Directors. In the affidavit, it has been stated that petitioners No.1 to 49, except petitioner No.36, have been granted the benefit in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.G. Walia's case (supra). Regarding petitioner No.36, it has been stated that since he was appointed after 1.11.1966, he was not considered fit to be granted the said benefit. As regards the claim of petitioner No.36, learned counsel for the respondents states that if he files a representation within a period of one month, his claim will be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority by passing a well reasoned order and the decision will be communicated to the said petitioner within a period of four months. Counsel for the petitioners conceded that necessary relief has been granted to all the petitioners except petitioner No.36. In view of the said conceded position, as far as this petition qua petitioners No.1 to 49, except petitioner No.36, is concerned, the same has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. As far as petitioner No.36 is concerned, he is permitted to file a representation taking all the pleas before the Managing Director, HVPNL, Panchkula within a period of one month. If any such representation is filed, Managing Director, HVPNL, Panchkula is C.W.P. No.15764 of 2002 (O&M) -4- directed to consider and decide the same by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of four months. July 17, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE