IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.854 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 16.11.2009 O.P. Gupta. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.L. Batta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gita Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, partly allowing the writ petition to the extent of directing grant of revised pay scale of Rs.18750-22850 w.e.f. 1.11.1997 for the period of his working as President of District Consumer Forum and also to give benefit of enhanced leave encashment along with arrears for the period of his judicial service prior to re-employment as President of District Consumer Forum. Claim for revised pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and increase in pension and gratuity and leave encashment period by counting service on reemployment was rejected. LPA No.854 of 2009 2. Undisputed facts are that the appellant retired as District Judge in 1995 and was reemployed as President of District Consumer Forum for five years as per terms of appointment mentioned in order dated 18.10.1995, Annexure R-1. 3. The appellant claimed that on his reemployment, he should be treated at par with other officers in Govt. service including pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and revised pension, gratuity and leave encashment by counting period of reemployment and in any case, he could not be denied pay scale given to directly appointed Presidents of District Fora w.e.f. 1.11.1997. 4. Learned Single Judge upheld claim for higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.11.1997 on principle of equal pay for equal work but rejected claim for being treated equal to other serving officers for revised pay scale and for counting reemployment service, following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S. Chawla and others v. State of Punjab and another AIR 2001 SC 1706. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. It was submitted that notwithstanding his retirement and terms of reemployment, the appellant was entitled to revised pay scale and counting service on reemployment for purposes of gratuity, pension etc. 6. We do not find any merit in this contention. The appellant had retired from service in the year 1995. He could not, 2 LPA No.854 of 2009 thus, seek parity with the employees who were in service in the year 1996 and were governed by revised pay scale. 7. In M.S. Chawla (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appointment of a District Judge as President of District Consumer Forum is a case of reemployment and his pension had to be fixed as per rules, on the basis of pension payable to a retired District Judge. In view of the said judgment, learned Single Judge rightly held that the re-employment service could not be counted for pension, gratuity or leave encashment. 9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 16, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3