LPA No. 930 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 930 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 10 .8.2010 State of Haryana and another ... Appellants Versus Dr. K.L.Kumar and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This bunch of 10 appeals* is directed against judgement dated 6.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of various writ petitions. The petitioner- respondents have been working on the posts of Joint Director, Deputy Director etc. in the Animal Husbandry Department of the appellant-State. The petitioner- respondents were drawing salary having been placed in the selection grade in respect of 20 percent of the posts w.e.f. 1.4.1992. Their pre-revised scale in the selection grade was Rs. 4100-5300 before 1.1.1996. However, the appellant- State revised the pay scale to Rs. 12000-16500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The petitioner- respondents were, however, granted the pay scale of Rs. 13500-17250 being the revised pay scale for corresponding scale of Rs. 4100-5300. Their pay was lateron sought to be fixed in the scale of Rs. 12000-16500. The excess amount of recovery was sought to be withdrawn although they had already retired LPA No. 930 of 2010 2 from service. The learned Single Judge repelled the contention of the appellant- State when it had urged that the petitioner respondents were granted the Assured Career Progression Scale and they were governed by the Haryana Civil Service (Assured Career Progression ) Rules, 1988 and that they were not by the Haryana Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 by observing as under: “ The submission that ACP Rules are to apply to the case of the petitioners would not appear sound. The petitioners are the one who were fixed in the scale on the basis of their promotion as Joint director. Not only that, their pay had been fixed in the selection grade, which is available only to 20% of the posts existing in the cadre. Once they had been considered and granted promotion or the selection grade, obviously they would not be governed by the ACP Rules. Assured Career Progression basically is to take care of the situation where the one is not able to earn a promotion in the normal course of his service career. Accordingly, the plea that ACP Rules would be applicable to the case of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Since there is no selection grade now available, the pay of the petitioners required to be fixed by taking into consideration the scale drawn by them in the un-revised pay scale. This un- revised pay scale clearly is now revised to Rs. 13000- 17250. .......” The learned Single Judge also held that the revised pay rules of 1998 were applicable and entry at serial no. 43 of 1st Schedule Part II Revised Pay Rules clearly provides the conversion scale of the pay scale of Rs. 4100- LPA No. 930 of 2010 3 5300 which is equivalent to the scale of pay of Rs. 13500-17250. The learned Single Judge after examining the issue of applicability of the rules concluded that Revised Pay Rules were applicable. The aforesaid course was adopted presumably on account of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Dr. M.P. Mohla 2007 (1) SCC 457 and the issue has been examined afresh in the light of the observations made therein. The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the aforesaid judgement to conclude that the controversy infact is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has upheld the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court. Having heard the learned State counsel at a considerable length, we are of the considered view that the revised pay scale of Rs. 13500-17250 was rightly granted to the petitioner- respondents and it was unfair to refix their pay in the scale of Rs. 12000-16500. We are satisfied that there is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge particularly when the matter has been examined in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Dr. M.P. Mohla (supra) and it has been found that revised pay scale rules of 1998 were applicable and the ACP Rules were not applicable. After clarifying the aforesaid position, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the pay scale of Rs. 13500-17250 were to be given to the post of Joint Director and corresponding pay scale to other petitioner- respondents who are holding other different posts. In view of the above, we are not inclined to admit the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. As a sequel to the above discussion the view of the learned Single Judge is upheld. Consequently all the appeals fail and are hereby LPA No. 930 of 2010 4 dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeals on merit, no orders are required to be passed on the applications filed alongwith the appeals. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeals. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (A. N. Jindal ) 10 .8.2010 Judge okg * LPA 930-10 (O&M)STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S K.L.KUMAR AND ORS. LPA 931-10(O&M) STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S O.P. SATIJA ANDORS. LPA-932-2010 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S DHARAM PAL SINGH AND ORS. LPA-933-2010 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S J.P.BANSAL AND ORS. LPA-934-2010 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S R.S.PANGHAL LPA-935-2010 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S NAWAL SINGH AND ORS. LPA-936-2010 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S M.L.GUPTA AND ORS. LPA-938-2010 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S BALBIR SINGH BAINS AND ORS. LPA 939-2010 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S TILAK RAJ ANEJA AND ANR. LPA-940-2010 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. V/S G.P.GROVER AND ANR.