CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8213 OF 2007 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 26, 2008 Parties Name Kuldip Kumar and another ..PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. K.L.Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. This order will dispose of two cases – C.W.P. No. 8213 of 2007 and C.W.P. No. 8423 of 2007 involving similar questions. Facts are being mentioned from C.W.P. No. 8213 of 2003. In both the cases, petitioners are former employees of the Municipal Committees in the State of Haryana. On abolition of the octroi duty, their posts became surplus. A policy decision was taken by the State of Haryana to adjust them in different departments of the State, by transferring their service. As per that policy, order Annexure P-1 was passed and the petitioners were posted as Sub Inspector, by way of transfer , in Co-operative Societies in the State of Haryana. It was stipulated in their terms and conditions of appointment that they will not claim benefit of their CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8213 OF 2007 -2 past service towards seniority and will become junior in the Co-operative Department of the State of Haryana. Both the petitioners are serving in the above Department since January 19, 2000. Vide order Annexure P-5, benefit of A.C.P. Scale, given to them, on completion of 10/ 20 years of service was withdrawn. Hence this writ petition. When notice of motion was issued on May 28, 2007, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court: “Learned counsel submits that the petitioners who were working in the different Municipal Committees were declared surplus. As per the appointment letter, Annexure P1, the petitioners were to be given all the benefits of their past service, except seniority. However, in this regard learned counsel has made reference to Annexure P6, whereby the Director, Urban Development, Haryana has also recommended that the surplus employees of the Municipal Committees who were adjusted in other departments by transfer be granted all the service benefits of their past service, except seniority. But, as per Annexure P5, the grant of ACP scale has been withdrawn by the respondents from the employees who were adjusted from the Municipal Committees. It is submitted that the order, Annexure P5, is contrary to the terms of the appointment letter and the recommendations of the Director, Urban Development, Haryana.” At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has brought to our notice judgment passed in C.W.P. No. 7944 of 2007 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8213 OF 2007 -3 (Kashmir Singh and another v. State of Haryana), decided on February 13, 2008. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that vide ratio of the judgment, referred to above, case is covered in favour of the petitioners. In that case, similar controversy was involved and while deciding the same, it was observed thus: “ It is apparent from the records that many similarly situated employees came to this Court by filing civil writ petition No. 15039 of 2003. On August 2, 2005, when deciding that writ petition, this Court held them entitled to get benefit of higher pay scale. We are of the view that the case of the petitioners is fully covered by ratio of the judgment, referred to above. Not only this, it is apparent from the records that the petitioners were absorbed in the Co-operation Department by way of transfer, as such now it is not open to the authorities to deny them benefit of the service, rendered by them in Municipal Committees. They may not get benefit of the past service with regard to seniority, but for getting the higher pay scale, they are definitely entitled to get benefit of that period. Otherwise also, orders Annexures P-5 and P-6, which were passed in the years 2002 and 2001 respectively, had become final when order Annexure P-7 was issued. Retrospective effect could not have been given to order Annexure P-7.” In view of facts mentioned above, we allow these writ petitions and quash order Annexure P-5 in both the petitions and restore the earlier CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8213 OF 2007 -4 orders, vide which benefit of ACP scale was granted in favour of the petitioners. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jaswant Singh) February 26, 2008. Judge DKC