IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.433 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.12.2008 State of Haryana and another .... Appellants vs. Kanwaljit Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate Advocate for the respondents. Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) This order shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos.433 of 2008 and 2148 of 2008 as they arise from a common judgment. The State of Haryana challenges the judgments and decrees dated 24.10.2007 passed by the District Judge, Karnal decreeing the suit filed by the respondents and modifying the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal. The respondents, on the other hand have filed Regular Second Appeal No.2148 of 2008, challenging these judgments and decrees by asserting that they should be paid overtime for actual work performed. The plaintiffs-respondents are working as drivers and conductors with the Haryana Roadways, Karnal and were admittedly being paid overtime. However, pursuant to instructions dated 1st February, 2002 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, overtime was withdrawn retrospectively and w.e.f. 1.10.2001. Aggrieved by these instructions, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit praying that these instructions could not be implemented retrospectively. The learned trial court accepted their prayer, decreed the suit and directed the respondents to pay overtime wages from 30th October, 2001 to 31st January, 2002 for two hours per day RSA No.433 of 2008 -2- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim became due till its realisation. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the State of Haryana filed an appeal which was partly accepted modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by holding that the appellants would be entitled to overtime wages from 30th October, 2001 but 31st January, 2002 for two hours per day or six hours in a week. The only submission made by the counsel for the appellants is that as the instructions dated 1st February, 2002 specifically debar payment of overtime wages w.e.f. 1st October, 2001, the trial court as well as the first appellate court, had no jurisdiction to decree the suit and dismiss the appeal. It is submitted that administrative instructions, can in a given situation operate retrospectively and, therefore, the courts below committed an error in granting relief to the respondents. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that as the respondents have admittedly worked overtime, the courts below rightly held that the policy abolishing overtime wages would operate prospectively. It is however, argued that the courts below should have granted overtime for the actual period of overtime and should not have confined it to two hours per day or six hours in a week. I have heard counsel for the parties and find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below. The policy abolishing overtime wages came into existence on 1st February, 2002 but was assigned retrospective operation w.e.f. 1.10.2001. Both the courts below have rightly held that the policy would not operate retrospectively as the respondents have already worked for the period prior to 1st February, 2002. As regards the submission that the respondents are entitled to overtime wages for the actual period of overtime, it would have to be rejected as the right to receive overtime wages is governed by instructions which confine overtime wages to a period of two hours per day or six hours RSA No.433 of 2008 -3- in a week. The respondents cannot be granted overtime wages over and above, their entitlement. As the impugned judgments do no suffer from any error of law and they do not raise a substantial question of law, the appeals are dismissed. 4.12.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge