Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ishwar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 February, 2012

Author:
Augustine George Masih

Bench:
Augustine George Masih

C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision:- 13.02.2012

C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011

Ishwar Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.13778 of 2011

Vijyender Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.13835 of 2011

Subhash Chand and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.14016 of 2011

Madan Lal and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.14053 of 2011

Ranbir Singh and another ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -2-

C.W.P.No.15291 of 2011

Ranbir Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.15657 of 2011

Madan Lal and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.15680 of 2011

Jagdish and another ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.15768 of 2011

Nafe Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.16881 of 2011

Surender Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.16900 of 2011

Joginder Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -3-

C.W.P.No.17815 of 2011

Mahabir Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.18739 of 2011

Babu Ram and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.18752 of 2011

Suresh Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.18761 of 2011

Pale Ram and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.13774 of 2011

Raj Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.18440 of 2011

Jai Pal and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -4-

C.W.P.No.17121 of 2011

Satyavadi and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

C.W.P.No.16934 of 2011

Rajbir and others ....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

***

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

***

Present:- Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Mr.Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP Nos.16934, 17121and 18440 of 2011.

Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

***

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

By this order I proposed to dispose of CWP Nos.17808, 13778,

13835, 14016, 14053, 15291, 15657, 15680, 15768, 16881, 16900, 17815,

18739, 18752, 18761, 13774, 18440, 17121 and 16934 of 2011 as common

questions of facts and law are involved therein.

Facts are being taken from CWP No.17808 of 2011 wherein

pleadings are complete and the stand of the respondents denying the benefit

claimed by the petitioners stands projected. Petitioners undisputedly are

C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -5-

working on technical posts and since they were working on such posts, they

were granted the pay-scale for which they were entitled to on the basis of

various judgments passed by this Court. The lead case being CWP

No.18754 of 1991 titled as
Gurdev Singh and others vs. State of Haryana

and others
, decided on 18.01.2010. While implementing the judgment

passed by this Court in various writ petitions including the above-mentioned

writ, State of Haryana issued letter dated 9.8.2010. This letter although

granted the claim which was made by the employees who were working on

technical posts i.e. the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990 or from

the date subsequent thereto when they joined the service. But the arrears

of the said fixation of pay and subsequent revision thereof have been

denied to them on the ground that while disposing of CWP No.10074 of

2010 and 10276 of 2010, this Court had not said a word about arrears and

the entitlement of the petitioners therein. Basing on the said letter and

judgments, petitioners have been granted the fixation of notional pay-scales

as per their entitlement but the arrears have been denied to them. It is, at

this stage, that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the

present writ petitions.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that the denial of arrears to

the petitioners is primarily based upon the order passed by this Court in

CWP No.10276 of 2010 titled as
Nihal Singh and others vs. State of

Haryana and others
decided on 27.5.2010. After passing of the said order

and issuance of letter dated 9.8.2010, petitioners in that writ petition and

connected writ petitions, where arrears were not granted to them, had

specifically moved applications before this Court for modification of order

dated 27.5.2010. Notice of the applications wherein the petitioners have

C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -6-

claimed arrears from the date of their entitlement of the pay-scale was

issued to the respondents and upon hearing the counsel for the parties, this

Court was pleased to restrict the claim of monetary benefits of the pay-

scales to 38 months preceding the date of filing of the writ petitions vide

order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-7). On this basis, counsel contends

that the petitioners are entitled to arrears of pay after the fixation of pay as

per the entitlement in same terms from the date of grant of pay fixation.

Counsel for the respondents, on the basis of the reply filed by

the respondents, submit that the petitioners are not entitled to the arrears of

revision of pay-scales as claimed by them as they have been granted the

benefit as per letter dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P-6) which does not confer

any right of arrears on the employees. He further contends that the

petitioners are also not entitled to the arrears for the reason that they have

approached this Court after an inordinate delay.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the

records of the case.

Facts are not in dispute that the petitioners were granted the

benefit of the pay-scales of technical posts and thereafter the revision of the

pay-scale on notional basis in the light of the judgment passed by this Court

in
Gurdev Singh
's case (supra).

Although in
the said judgment
, benefit of

arrears of pay was granted from the date of their entitlement but this was

done primarily because the petitioners in those writ petitions have

approached the Court in the year 1991 itself and their claim was

w.e.f.1.5.1990 but subsequently the petitioners have approached this Court

by filing various writ petitions especially in the year 2010 after the decision

in
Gurdev Singh
's case (supra). This Court initially while disposing of

C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -7-

CWP No.10074 of 2010 and 10276 of 2010 did not grant any arrears of pay

fixation and revision but had only granted notional fixation thereof which

was made the basis by the respondents for not granting the benefit of

arrears of pay to the petitioners.

However, they did not take into

consideration the subsequent order dated 12.1.2011 passed by this Court in

applications moved by the petitioners in CWP Nos.10074 of 2010 and

10276 of 2010 claiming the grant of arrears in the light of the judgment

passed in
Gurdev Singh
's case (supra). Although the claim as made by

the petitioners in those applications was not granted in toto but arrears were

restricted to 38 months preceding from the date of filing the writ petitions.

The respondents, while granting the benefit of the pay-scale to the

petitioners on the technical posts held by them and fixing their notional pay

taking into consideration the revision of the pay-scales subsequently,

should have also taken into consideration the subsequent order dated

12.1.2011 passed by this Court in CM No.10597 of 2010 in CWP No.10276

of 2010 and other connected matters (Annexure P-7).

In view of the subsequent clarification by this Court, denial of

arrears of pay fixation along with subsequent revision thereof prior to 38

months from the date of filing of writ petitions, cannot be said to be

justified and, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of arrears of 38

months from the date of grant of pay-scales to them. As the claim of

fixation of pay and revision and subsequent revision thereof have been

granted to the petitioners based on the judgment of this Court which has

been subsequently clarified by this Court by modifying the initial order and

granted them the arrears, consequential benefits should also flow to the

petitioners as they have been granted the said benefit. Accordingly, the

C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -8-

stand taken by the respondents denying the benefit of arrears to the

petitioners cannot sustain and is hereby rejected.

Counsel for the respondents have taken a plea that the

petitioners have approached this Court after a long delay and, therefore, are

not entitled to the arrears as claimed by them also cannot be accepted as

they have already been denied the benefit of arrears of pay from the date of

their actual date of entitlement because of their delayed claim made by

them and claim of their entitlement. Accordingly, this objection also, as

raised by the counsel for the respondents, is not accepted and stands

rejected.

In the light of the above, present writ petitions are allowed with

directions to the respondents to grant the petitioners arrears of pay for 38

months preceding the date of the order by which they were granted the

benefit of fixation of pay and subsequent revision thereof.

As far as petitioner No.3-Roshan Lal son of Attar Singh in

CWP No.17808 of 2011 is concerned, it has been stated in the reply that the

petitioner does not belong to the division of answering respondent No.3

and, therefore, his service particulars are not known to the answering

respondent.
In this regard, it is clarified that in case the petitioner has

already been granted the benefit of fixation of pay on notional basis as per

the order passed by the Court in
Gurdev Singh
's case (supra), he shall also

be entitled to the same benefit as other petitioners as mentioned above.

Photocopy of this order be placed on record on all the

connected cases.

February 13, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )

C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -9-

poonam JUDGE