Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shyam Lal And Others vs . State Of Haryana And Others on 26 February, 2010
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.15731 of 2006 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision:26.02.2010
Shyam Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr.CM Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.RS Kundu Addl.AG, Haryana, for the respondents.
--
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
C.M Nos.2575 of 2010 is allowed. Copy of the judgment Annexure P-25 is taken on record.
CM No.2576 of 2010 is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up on board for final disposal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioners were initially appointed as Clerk/Patwari in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the HSMITC"). The staff of HSMITC became surplus and the government decided to absorb them in different departments and the petitioners were absorbed in the Revenue Department. As per the policy decision of the government, one additional increment is to be granted to its employees on completion of CWP No.15731 of 2006 (O&M) 2 10/20 years of service. Government further modified the above scheme in the year 1992 and granted benefit of additional increment on completion of 8/18 years of regular satisfactory service. In the year 1994, the government further decided to grant time bound higher standard pay scale after 10 years and 20 years of service. The petitioners requested for the grant of higher standard pay scale benefit. The same was not granted to them. They served a legal notice Annexure P-16 upon the respondents. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P-19). It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition.
The respondents in the reply filed, have reiterated the averments made in the impugned orders.
The issue raised in the writ petition is no more res integra. A similar issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Deepak Sood and others, (Civi Appeal No.4446 of 2008) decided on 15.07.2008, wherein the following observations have been made:-
"Therefore, in the series of judgments given by this Court the view has been taken that in case of a transfer/absorption from one department to another or from public sector to State though the benefit of the seniority may be denied to the incumbent but not for any other benefits like pay fixation and for the pensionary benefits. CWP No.15731 of 2006 (O&M) 3 Therefore, when the benefit of past service rendered in the parent department was given for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits, there is no reason why the past service should not be counted for grant of ACP Grade. Consequently, we are of the view that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order is correct and there is no ground to interfere in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs."
The aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the facts of the present writ petition.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P-19) is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioners are held entitled to Higher Standard Pay Scale/ACP by counting the service rendered in HSMITC. Consequential benefits be paid to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.
26.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE