Civil Writ Petition No.8047 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 09, 2010 Ramphal Mehla ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was initially appointed as S.S.Master in the Government Aided School, i.e., Arya National High School, Mohana (Sonepat). This school was taken over by the Government w.e.f. 9.11.1979. The services of the petitioner were also taken over and he was absorbed in the Government service. At the time of his absorption, the petitioner was drawing basic pay of ` 228/- in the pay scale of ` 220-400/-. Since the petitioner was working as Civil Writ Petition No.8047 of 2008 : 2 : S.S.Master against a sanctioned post on regular basis, he was appointed as such on six months basis subject to the approval of the S.S.S.Board, Haryana. After approval, the petitioner was given regular appointment w.e.f. 9.11.1979. The pay scale of the petitioner was accordingly fixed in the scale of ` 525-1050/-, i.e., the revised scale. The basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at ` 620/-, i.e., 600 plus 20 as personal pay as on 9.11.1979. At the time of absorption, the petitioner was shown to be drawing ` 220 plus 8 as personal pay, which was corresponding to ` 600 plus 20 as personal pay in the revised scale of ` 525-1050. The petitioner thereafter represented that his personal pay of ` 20/- is required to be merged with basic pay of ` 600/- in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Scale of Pay) Rules, 1980. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed that his basic pay should be fixed at ` 620/- w.e.f. 9.11.1979. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and his pay was accordingly fixed at ` 620/- w.e.f. 9.11.1979. Subsequently, however, the pay of the petitioner was again re-fixed at the stage of basic pay of ` 585 plus 115 as personal pay, to be absorbed in the next increment. The petitioner accordingly represented against the same and prayed that earlier fixation at the stage of ` 620/- w.e.f. 9.11.1979 should be taken into consideration and accordingly he had reached at the stage of ` 790/- on 1.11.1985. The petitioner prayed for fixing his pay at ` 820/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Pleading that the State Government had wrongly fixed the pay and that the benefit was wrongly withdrawn, the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.8047 of 2008 : 3 : filed the present writ petition. In addition, the petitioner would point out that similarly situated persons, like the petitioner, who were working at A.N.School Mohana and whose services were absorbed by the Government, had approached this court through CWP No.18854 of 1991, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this court on the ground that the benefit already granted could not be taken away. The necessary relief was accordingly granted to such employees by the Division Bench. In CWP No.12563 of 2003, it is observed that the basic pay ought to be added to the basic pay of the petitioner in fixing the salary in the prescribed scale. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. The pay fixation of the petitioner has been justified primarily on the ground of instructions issued by the Government annexed with the reply as Annexure R-2. The relevant and operative part of these instructions reads as under:- “i) The teacher whose pay is less than the minimum of the Govt. Scale should be given minimum of Govt. Scale. ii) In other cases where the pay is more than the minimum of the Govt. Scale, he should continue to draw the same pay subject to the condition that it may not exceed the maximum of the grades, the amount of his pay which he may be getting in excess of the minimum of the Govt. Pay Scale being treated as personal pay and adjusted in his future increments provided.” Mr.Rathee would rely upon sub-clause (ii) of the instruction, reproduced above, to say that the personal pay is Civil Writ Petition No.8047 of 2008 : 4 : required to be adjusted in future increment provided. Accordingly, the State would justify the action of fixing the pay and withdrawing the benefit of the pay earlier fixed, which has been withdrawn. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the order passed in CWP No.12563 of 2003 (Annexure P-5) and would refer to the stand taken by the State, which is recorded in the said order and is as under:- “Learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submitted that Rule 6 (1) relating to fixation of pay in the revised scale of Pay Rules, 1980 imposes an obligation upon the respondents to include personal pay but not to include special pay granted on account of arduous nature of duties at the time of applying fitment formuls in the case of the petitioner.” It is, thus, clear that earlier it was pleaded on behalf of the State that obligation imposed upon respondents to include personal pay but not to include special pay granted on account of arduous nature of duties. Taking this stand into consideration, the Division Bench of this court disposed of the said writ petition of similarly situated persons with a direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate order in view of the above stand, which was in conformity with the rules, as expeditiously as possible. Adopting the same course, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in CWP No.12563 of 2003. In case there is any different stand now adopted by the State, that can not be permitted and Civil Writ Petition No.8047 of 2008 : 5 : allowed to be considered. The case of the petitioner deserves to be considered in the light of the law laid down by this court in CWP No.12563 of 2003. Let this exercise be done within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The benefits, if any, due to the petitioner be also released within the period afore-mentioned. September 09, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE