IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No. 15 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.8.2009 A.S.Verma ......Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting the claim for re-fixation of pay on the post of Chief Accounts Officer. 3. The appellant joined as steno-typist in the erstwhile state of Punjab. Later he was appointed as Deputy Director Finance and in that capacity he was getting special pay of Rs.150/-. On promotion to the post of Chief Accounts Officer on 27.7.1992, his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.3000-4500. He made a claim that his pay should be fixed after adding special pay which he was getting in the lower grade. His claim was not accepted by the State on the ground that special pay in the lower grade was on account of arduous nature of duty and was not applicable to the promotion post. L.P.A.No.15 of 2009 [2] 4. Learned Single Judge upheld the stand of the State and dismissed the writ petition except for directing that the pay which he was already drawing be protected and he would continue to draw pay of Rs.3750/- from the date of promotion till the date he got higher pay. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 (for short, “the Act”), service conditions could not be changed to disadvantage of the employee and under Rule 2.44 (a) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 1, Part I, as applicable immediately before 1st November, 1966, special pay was part of pay. This contention has no merit. Admittedly, the appellant was not drawing special pay on the date of reorganization and he was given special pay much later. 7. It was next submitted that in the written statement it is stated that under Rule 4.4 Note (9), special pay is to be treated as basic pay if an employee had worked on lower post continuously for a minimum period of three years prior to promotion. The said claim was rejected relying upon the instructions dated 4.5.1982 to the effect that the said provision will apply only where special pay was admissible on promotion post. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon judgments in J.S.Yadav vs. The State of Haryana and others 2002(1) SLR, 244 and K.G.Walia and others v. State of Haryana and others 1991(1) LLR (P&H) 347, which were relied upon before the learned Single Judge. In J.S.Yadav case (supra), the special pay was admissible for pension, which is not the case in the said appeal. In K.G.Walia case (supra), the issue was L.P.A.No.15 of 2009 [3] whether under Section 82(6) of the Act, there could be change of pay to the disadvantage of the employee. That situation does not arise in the present case as the appellant granted special pay after 1966. 9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 12, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No L.P.A.No.15 of 2009 [4] L.P.A.No.15 of 2009 [5]