CWP No. 3799 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3799 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 27, 2009 Prem Singh Khatkar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.;Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated4.2.2008 whereby the additional increment which was granted to him on completion of 18 years service (after counting his ad hoc service) was directed to be withdrawn and recovery effected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 14664 of 1997 which was allowed on 9.2.1998 by a Division Bench of this Court in the following terms :- “Resultantly the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the additional CWP No. 3799 of 2008 2 increments to the petitioners with effect from the dates on which they completed 8/18 years of service including the service rendered on ad hoc basis. The petitioners shall be entitled to the entire arrears accrued to them on grant of such additional increments on completion of 8/18 years of service. These directions shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of two months. No order as to costs.” This judgment attained finality and the necessary relief was granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in another case i.e. Civil Appeal No. 13423 of 1996 titled as State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Associations decided on 19.9.2000 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for calculating 8/18 years service, only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad hoc service. It is, however, not disputed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner viz. CWP No.14664 of 1997 was never appealed against. In CWP No. 6599 of 2009 titled as Shakuntala Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others decided on 4.3.2008 a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “Therefore, keeping in view the princi9ple of law that rights inter parties which have been conclusively determined by judicial orders cannot be reagitated on the basis of subsequent declaration of law in some other subject judgment as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme CWP No. 3799 of 2008 3 Court in Madras Telephone's case (supra), Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's case (supra) and Karnal Coop. Farmer's Society's case (supra), the orders and notices impugned in these connected 28 writ petitions are not sustainable and hence set aside. However, it is made clear that if the benefit of higher grade on the basis of higher qualification,JST grade was granted to any of the petitioner(s) by the respondents on their volition i.e. without any binding judicial order, then the benefit can b withdrawn with effect from the date of grant, in view of the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitra Devi's case (supra) after following the principles of natural justice, but no recovery of excess amount already paid to the petitioners shall be effected for the period from the date of grant till the date of the passing of the orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana 1995 (2) Recent Service Judgments 139.” Consequently in view of the binding precedent in Shakuntala Devi's case (supra) this petition has to be allowed and the order dated 4.2.2008 is set aside. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 27, 2009 sunita