C.W.P. No. 11818 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11818 of 1988 Date of Decision 13.09.2010 Mr. Suresh Kumar Clerk -----Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. AG, Haryana for the respondent-State 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to respondents to reckon the period of service for the purposes of fixation of pay from 1.12.1976 to 29.10.1985 when he rendered service through the State Agency known as District Rural Development Agency (for brevity 'the D.R.D.A.). It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 1.12.1976 in D.R.D.A. and he was regularised on a permanent post w.e.f. 28.4.1977. The agency was initial known as Drought Prone Area Programme Agency, which was later on re-named as D.R.D.A. The petitioner was selected by the Subordinate Services Selection C.W.P. No. 11818 of 1988 -2- Board for appointment on the post of a Clerk and then joined Education Department on 30.10.1985 (forenoon) . According to the averment made in para 6 of the petition, the D.R.D.A. is a centrally sponsored scheme, which is funded by the Central and State Governments on equal sharing basis. The agency has been established by the Department of Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi. At the State level, the Department of Rural Development or any other department which is allocated to the aforesaid subject is responsible for planning, implementation, monitoring and evolution of the programme. There is a State Level Coordination Committee, which consists of following: “i) Chief Secretary/ Agriculture Production Committee/ Development Commissioner; ii) Secretary, Department of Finance or his representative; iii) Secretary Department of Planning or his representative; iv) Head of Department of Agriculture; v) Head of Department of Animal Husbandry; vi) Head of Department of Irrigation; vii) Head of Department of Cooperation; viii) Head of Department of Forest; ix) Head of Department of Fisheries; x) Head of Department of Industries and Mines; xi) A representative of the Government of India, not C.W.P. No. 11818 of 1988 -3- below the rank of Deputy Secretary; xii) Joint/ Deputy Secretary, Department of Rural Development is its members Secretary. Apart from above, the District Development Agency is sponsored and controlled by the State Level Coordination Committee and the District Collector is its Chairman as is evident from perusal of the communication dated 4.6.1987 (Annexure P-6). The aforesaid factual position has not been expressly controverted in the corresponding para of the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. Once funding the control, monitoring and implementation of the Scheme is by the Central and State Governments then it cannot be disputed that it is an agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, it would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The question then is whether the petitioner is entitled to reckon his services rendered in D.R.D.A. from 1.12.1976 to 29.10.1985, claiming fixation of pay under Rule 4.4(b) (iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I (for brevity 'the Rules') as applicable to the State of Haryana. The aforesaid Rule reads as under: “FIXATION OF INITIAL PAY 4.4 (b) if the conditions prescribed in clause(a) are not fulfilled, he will drew as initial pay the minimum of the time scale:- Provided both in cases covered by C.W.P. No. 11818 of 1988 -4- clause (a) and in clause, other than cases of re- employment after resignation or removal, or dismissal from the public service, covered by clause (b), that if he either:- (i) has previously held substantively or officiated in:- i) the same post, or ii) a permanent or temporary post on the same time scale, or iii) a permanent post other than a tenure post or a temporary post (including a post in a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government) on an identical time scale; or A perusal of the aforesaid rule would show that if an employee has previously held substantively or officiated in the same post or a permanent or temporary post on the same time-scale or a permanent post other than tenure post or a temporary post including a post in a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government on an identical time-scale then the initial pay should not be less than the pay, which he drew on the last such occasion. Accordingly, he would be entitled to count for increment during which he drew that payment on last and previous occasions for increment in the stages of the time-scale equivalent to that pay. The petitioner also fulfills the conditions laid C.W.P. No. 11818 of 1988 -5- down in the Rule that he should have been approved for appointment to a particular grade post in which previous service is to be counted. It has come on record that the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Clerk in the D.R.D.A. on 28.4.1977 and he was appointed through a regular process of selection by the Subordinate Services Selection Board on 30.10.1985 in the D.R.D.A. The pay of the petitioner was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 480-760 after giving him benefit of yearly increment. He was appointed in the Education Department on the post of Clerk. It is also not disputed that he was drawing his basic pay at the rate of Rs. 555/- from 29.10.1985 and the post of Clerk in the Education Department also carried the same pay scale. Therefore, all the conditions envisaged by Rule 4.4(b)(iii) of the Rules are satisfied. The only stand taken by the respondents in the written statement is that the petitioner has been working in the pay scale of selection grade i.e. Rs. 480-760 w.e.f. 1.3.1985 and therefore, he cannot be considered to be working in the same pay scale. The aforesaid argument does not need any detailed consideration because it is conceded case that post of Clerk in D.R.D.A. as well as in the Education Department carried the same pay scale and the selection grade is given to those who were meritorious, yet the employee continued to be in the cadre of Clerk. The situation is not different in the Education Department. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents is rejected. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition succeeds C.W.P. No. 11818 of 1988 -6- and the impugned order dated 24.10.1988 (Annexure P-5) rejecting the representation of the petitioner is quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner with all consequential benefits under Rule 4.4(b)(iii) of the Rules by counting service rendered by him from 1.12.1976 to 29.10.1985. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of this order. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE September 13, 2010 Atul