Civil Writ Petition No. 18309 of 1998 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Civil Writ Petition No. 18309 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.11.2008 Pritam Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana etc. .......Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG, Haryana for the respondents -.- NIRMALJIT KAUR , J. C M No. 20441 of 2008 This is an application for early hearing of the main petition on some actual date being a covered matter. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the instant civil miscellaneous application is allowed and Civil Writ Petition No. 18309 of 1998, is taken up for final disposal, today. Main case Petitioner, Pritam Singh, did his matriculation examination with Science subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Math along with Hindi and Arts from Intermediate Education Board, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1971. On 24.03.1978, the Deputy Director, Research, Karnal sent requisition for filling up one post of Laboratory Attendant to the Employment Exchange. Civil Writ Petition No. 18309 of 1998 (O&M) 2 The minimum prescribed qualification for the said post was matriculation with Science subjects of Physics and Chemistry. The petitioner being qualified applied for the said post and was duly selected. Vide Annexure P-5, the Laboratory Attendants, those who were matriculate, were granted pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and were classified as Class III Group 'C' post, while the non-matric Laboratory Attendants were granted pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 and were classified as Class IV Group 'D' post with effect from 01.01.1986. Since the petitioner possessed the qualification of matriculation, he was also granted pay scale of Rs.950-1500 with effect from 01.01.1986. However, at a subsequent stage, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 22.01.1998 (Annexure P-6) after almost 20 years, to show cause as to why the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- granted to the petitioner be not withdrawn and rather he should be given the pay scale of Rs.775-1025/- with effect from 01.01.1986, as admissible to the non- matric employees on the ground that the qualification of matriculation without English possessed by the petitioner is not recognized as equivalent to the matriculation by the Haryana School Education Board. The petitioner in the meantime had got the clarification sought from the School Education Board of Haryana on the issue in question, who vide its letter dated 24.12.1997 (Annexure P-7) clarified that High School Examination of the Education Board of U.P is equivalent to the Matric in Haryana for the purpose of seeking admission to the higher classes. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 03.02.1998. However, the respondents-State, without application of its judicious mind, ordered the reduction of the pay scale of petitioner from Civil Writ Petition No. 18309 of 1998 (O&M) 3 Rs.950-1500 to Rs.775-1025 with effect from 01.01.1986 and also ordered to effect recovery on account of excess payment, vide orders dated 02.09.1998 and 17.09.1998 (Annexures P-10 and P-11, respectively). In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 02.09.1998 and 17.09.1998, being arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. While issuing notice of motion on 01.12.1998, this Court had also stayed the recovery from the petitioner pursuant to order dated 02.09.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.05.2007. During all this period, on account of the pendency of the present writ petition in this Court, the petitioner has not been granted any increments and selection grades on completion of 10 years and 20 years of service and the pension has not been calculated in accordance with the pay scale. By moving a civil miscellaneous application, the petitioner has also placed on the record of this case a decision rendered by this Court in a similar case titled as 'State of Haryana and others V Bajinder Parshad' (Regular Second Appeal No. 1770 of 2004, decided on 30.04.2004). In that case theissue involved was similar. The respondent-plaintiff had passed his matriculation examination from Secondary Board of Examination Allahabad (U.P) and on the basis of the instructions letter (Ex. PA), issued by the respondent-plaintiff, the pay scale granted to the plaintiffs-respondent was sought to be withdrawn. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the appeal filed by the State held as follows:- “...Therefore, the scale which has been granted to the plaintiff Civil Writ Petition No. 18309 of 1998 (O&M) 4 after the scrutiny can not be withdrawn arbitrarily and that too after a gap of more than 12 years. Further more, a careful perusal of the letter, EX PA , goes to show that this letter is prospective in nature. In the second para of this letter the words written are that now a decision has been taken by the Government that the examination conducted by the National Open School, New Delhi should be recognized only if the examinee has passed the similar subjects, which are those fixed by the Haryana School Education Board. The plaintiff has passed the matriculation examination from Secondary Education Council, Allahabad, therefore, in strict sense this letter is not applicable to the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also placed on record EX P-1, which is a letter written by the Secretary Haryana School Education Board, in which, it has been mentioned that Board of High School and intermediate Education Board Allahabad (U.P.) is equivalent to the matric of Haryana School Education Board. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance upon Roshan Lal v State of Haryana 1993 (6) and Krishan Kumari Chawla v The State of Punjab and Others 1997 (2) S.L.J. 1144 to contend that one increment granted, whether wrongly, no recovery can be made after the gap of more than 12 years. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Now the defendants can not arbitrarily withdraw the pay scale which has already been granted to the plaintiff.” Civil Writ Petition No. 18309 of 1998 (O&M) 5 While coming to the above conclusion, learned Single Judge has also relied on a judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of 'Neelam Kumari v State of Punjab and Others' 1993 (1) RSJ 323. The State of Haryana had also assailed the validity of the aforesaid judgment passed in RSA No. 1770 of 2004 by filing a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 2180 of 2005, but the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine vide order dated 04.03.2005. Copy whereof has also been placed on the record of this file as Annexure A-3. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana contested the same and tried to draw a distinction on the ground that as per letter dated 24.12.1997 (Annexure P-7), whereby the Haryana School Education Board had clarified that the High School Examination of Board of High School and Intermediate Education Allahabad (U.P) is equivalent to Matric examination of Haryana School education Board, have equivalence to Haryana School Education Board only for admission purposes and not for employment. I do not agree with the aforesaid distinction drawn. In fact , a certificate of matriculation held to be good and equivalent to the similar examination of the Haryana School Education Board for the purpose of promotion to the next class, cannot be held otherwise for the purpose of employment. Such an observation contained in Annexure P-7 is absolutely baseless and irrelevant, besides being totally vague and illegal. Thus, the matter in hand is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court in RSA No. 1770 of 2004, decided on 30.04.2004. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition stands Civil Writ Petition No. 18309 of 1998 (O&M) 6 allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside qua the petitioner only and the petitioner is held to be entitled to pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 01.01.1986 with all consequential benefits. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE November 28, 2008 mohan