IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20200 of 2003(O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2008 Devi Ram .... Petitioner versus State of Haryana & others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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.(ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Municipal Committee, Jhajjar on 25.11.1967 wherein he continued till 11.06.2001. The petitioner along with other Municipalities employees was appointed on transfer basis to the respondent No.1 Government of Haryana. At the time of his transfer, he was placed on the pay scale of Rs.5000-7850/- but after transfer his basic pay was fixed at the stage of Rs.4590/- in the lower scale. Aggrieved thereby he has filed the instant petition. The respondent has justified this action on the ground that at the time of his appointment his pay was protected by granting him Rs.1460/- as personal pay. It has been further mentioned that his personal pay will be absorbed in future increments earned by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that by this method in fact the protection of pay granted to him has been rendered illusory. CWP No.20200 of 2003(O&M) -2- A perusal of the appointment/transfer order issued to the petitioner as Annexure P-4 which has been mentioned in terms and conditions as follows: “They would not claim the benefit of their past service towards fixation of seniority and other matter and will be placed below the employees working in the Haryana Civil Secretariat like the new entrants. Their inter-se-seniority shall be fixed later on.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWP No.4446 of 2008 entitled as State of Haryana & another versus Deepak Sood & others wherein it has held as follows: “A perusal of these terms and conditions makes it clear that what is being lost by these surplus staff is their seniority. They will have to get zero seniority in the new Department but their past service has been counted for fixation of pay as well as pensionary benefits. The scheme of ACP Grade came subsequently. On that basis the respondents made a grievance that they were being denied the benefit of ACP and the services rendered by them in the Municipal Committee has not been counted for the purposes of calculating 10/20 years of service in the department. It is a misfortune that the respondents have been declared surplus in the Municipal Committee, Panipat but the Government has been benevolent to them and absorbed them in the State Government but denied them the benefit of past service for the purpose of seniority. However, at the same time they have counted their past service for the purpose of pay and pensionary benefits. Once the Government considered them eligible for fixation of pay and pensionary benefit and counted their past service then there is no reason why ACP grade should be denied to them. Having lost, at one hand their seniority in the new department, it would CWP No.20200 of 2003(O&M) -3- be unfair to deny them the benefit of ACP grade. When the Government counts their past service for grant of the benefit of pay fixation and pension, there is no reason why their past service should not be given the benefit of ACP Grade.” It may be mentioned that the said case also arose from a similar situation wherein surplus employees of the Municipal Committee of the various Municipalities had been absorbed by the State of Haryana. In these circumstances, this writ is allowed and the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.5000-7850/- at the stage of Rs.6050/- as on 11.06.2001. November 25, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE