Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tanvir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 October, 2023
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:135363-DB
2023:PHHC:135363-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.117 CWP-23548-2023
Date of decision : 17.10.2023
Tanvir Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present : Mr.Nikhil Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.R.S.Pandher, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
*****
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
1. Through the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of notification and circular dated 15.01.2015 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and notification dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-4) through which the State has directed that new recruits like the petitioner shall be paid minimum basic salary of a pay band (without Grade Pay) as also without any annual increment or allowances except travel allowances and that on confirmation of these employees the period prior to their confirmation shall not be treated as regular service. The petitioner further prays for issuance of directions to the State to release arrears of full salary to him from the date of his appointment till the date of completion of his probation in the applicable pay scale (alongwith Grade Pay), annual increments and all other allowances etc.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in his favour by a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 16.02.2023 passed in a bunch of petitions in which the lead case was CWP-17064-2017 - Ajay Kumar Singla and 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 21:46:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:135363-DB CWP-23548-2023 [2] 2023:PHHC:135363-DB others vs. State of Punjab and others.
3. Learned State counsel very fairly does not deny the above assertion.
4. In the light of the above, the present petition is also allowed in terms of the directions as given in Ajay Kumar Singla's case (supra) which are as follows:-
(a) Notification No.7/204/2012-4FP1/60 dt.15.01.2015 having already been quashed in Gurwinder Singh and others (1 supra) and Dr. Vishavdeep Singh and others (4 Supra), there is no need to quash it again;
(b) Clarification No.7/204/2012-4FP.1/166 dt.15.01.2015 and notification GSR.3/Const/Article 309/AMD.(5)/2015 dt.22.12.2015 to the extent they held that during period of probation or if increase in such period of probation, only fixed emoluments shall be paid to the employee, which shall be equal to the minimum of pay band of the service or post to which he is appointed and shall not include Grade Pay, Special Pay, Annual Increment or any other allowance except Travelling Allowance AND further directing that the period of probation shall not be treated to be the time spent on the time scale applicable to his post, are quashed;
(c) Any conditions included in appointment letters issued to petitioners on the basis of the above notifications, are also quashed;
(d) The respondents are directed to grant to the petitioners the regular pay scale alongwith all other emoluments, allowances etc. from the date of their initial appointment and pay the arrears within three months from today;
(e) The respondents are directed to count the period spent on probation as regular services for the purpose of 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 21:46:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:135363-DB CWP-23548-2023 [3] 2023:PHHC:135363-DB determination of the total length of service under the Service Rules.
(f) The validity of the notification No. GSR.56/Const./Art.309/AMD.(18)/2016 dt.05.09.2016 issued by the State of Punjab is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.
5. No costs.
[DEEPAK SIBAL]
JUDGE
17.10.2023 [SUKHVINDER KAUR]
shamsher JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:135363-DB 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 21:46:00 :::