IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 4502 of 1991 Date of Decision: July 5, 2011 The Haryana State Accounts Services Association, Chandigarh and others …Petitioners Versus The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. The short issue raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether special pay could be included in the basic pay for the purpose of calculating dearness allowance and pension etc. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that after pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and implementation of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987, their pay in the revised pay scale has not been fixed correctly. The aforesaid claim has been fortified on the ground that while calculating the dearness allowance which is CWP No. 4502 of 1991 2 to be taken into account in fixation of pay, the dearness allowance payable on the Special Pay has been excluded resulting in the wrong fixation. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the matter is no longer res integra. A similar controversy has been raised in the case of Budh Dev Yadav Budh Dev Yadav Budh Dev Yadav Budh Dev Yadav v. v. v. v. State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 9594 of 1 (CWP No. 9594 of 1 (CWP No. 9594 of 1 (CWP No. 9594 of 1990, decided on 990, decided on 990, decided on 990, decided on 11.3.2011) 11.3.2011) 11.3.2011) 11.3.2011). In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court has found that similar issue arose before this Court in the case of J.S. J.S. J.S. J.S. Yadav Yadav Yadav Yadav v. v. v. v. State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana (CWP No. 10894 of 1990) (CWP No. 10894 of 1990) (CWP No. 10894 of 1990) (CWP No. 10894 of 1990), which was dismissed on 10.7.1991 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. On 9.11.2001, the Letters Patent Bench reversed the order dated 10.7.1991 and the matter was taken to Hon’ble the Supreme Court by the respondent State of Haryana in Civil Appeal No. 1414 of 2003, which was disposed of on 8.12.2009. The Division Bench after going through the order dated 8.12.2009 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in Budh Dev Yadav’s case (supra) by observing as under:- “ We have read the order passed by the Apex Court. A reading of the said order goes to show that the Apex Court after consideration of the provisions contained in sub clause (i) and (iii) of Rule 2.44(a0 of the Revised Pay Rules as applicable to the Haryana Service Pay Rules came to the following conclusion:- “Hence, the special pay cannot be included in the basic pay for the purpose of calculating dearness allowance and pension etc.” CWP No. 4502 of 1991 3 As it has been held by the Apex Court that special pay cannot be included in the basic pay for the purpose of calculating dearness allowance, we are of the view that the claim made in this writ petition cannot be allowed. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed, however, with order as to costs.” 4. In fact, the instant petition was ordered to be heard along with Budh Dev Yadav’s case (supra), vide order dated 7.7.1993, passed by the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert that the facts of the instant petition are similar to the one as pleaded in Budh Dev Yadav’s case (supra). We find that the issue raised in the instant petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment dated 11.3.2011 rendered in Budh Dev Yadav’s case (supra). 5. For the parity of reasoning and precedent, the instant petition is also dismissed in terms of the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Budh Dev Yadav (supra) Budh Dev Yadav (supra) Budh Dev Yadav (supra) Budh Dev Yadav (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) July 5 July 5 July 5 July 5, , , , 2011 2011 2011 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor