CWP No.19205 of 2005 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 24.09.2010 Hari Pal Malik ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. GP Vasisth, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J (Oral): The petitioner initially joined the service in the Haryana Tanneries Limited, Jind. He was, thereafter, promoted as Assistant Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. He was drawing the basic pay of Rs.1480/- on 01.03.1988. The staff of the Haryana Tanneries Limited, Jind, was declared surplus. The employees facing the retrenchment filed CWP No.9469 of 1988 (Haryana Tanneries Employees Union (Regd.) Jind, Haryana Vs. State of Haryana and another) which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 01.12.1988 directing to adjust the retrenched employees in the service of the government Corporation/Boards. Consequently, the petitioner was given appointment by respondent-State in respondent No.2-Corporation. Pay of the petitioner was protected vide order dated 13.11.1992 (Annexure P-2). Later on, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner for withdrawal of the pay protection benefit. After seeking reply of the petitioner, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure P-7) withdrawing CWP No.19205 of 2005 -2- the pay protection benefit. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.11454 of 2004, on 08.05.2006, wherein the following observations/directions have been made:- “On absorption, the respondents have not granted the benefit of pay protection. The petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give them the benefit of service on the basis of the letter dated 7.5.2001 issued by the State of Haryana. The respondents filed the written statement. They have admitted the issuance of circular. They accepted that the petitioners are entitled to pay protection. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Once the petitioners have been absorbed on dated 19.1.2001 and the same have been reiterated in the circular letter dated 7.5.2001, it was the duty of the respondents to implement the same. Consequently, the petitioners shall be entitled to pay protection from the date they were absorbed in the Municipal Committee. We order accordingly. The arrears of the CWP No.19205 of 2005 -3- salary will be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. Petition allowed. No costs.” In view of the aforementioned direction, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. I order accordingly. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order for pay protection of the petitioner by taking into consideration his past services rendered in Haryana Tanneries Ltd. Consequently, the benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. 8.7.2010 Sd/- (Permod Kohli) Judge” The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the directions/observations aforesaid. No costs. 24.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE