Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maha Singh Rathi vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 21 December, 2011
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 4142 of 1993
Date of Decision: 21.12.2011.
Maha Singh Rathi --Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Electricity Board --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondent.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J I have heard respective counsel for the parties at length and have perused the paper book minutely.
The petitioner, who was serving on the post of Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming a two fold relief. (i) For the issuance of directions to fix the salary of the petitioner as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1.4.1979 in terms of office order no.230 dated 25.2.1981 and quashing the action of the Board in fixing his salary in the pay scale of Junior Engineer under order no.303 dated 12.4.1992. (ii) Issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Board to fix the salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 14.7.1981 i.e. the deemed date of promotion. Petitioner also prays for the grant of increments to be released to him in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Engineer along with arrears.
Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was working on the post of Junior Engineer in the Board was denied the promotion to the post of CWP No. 4142 of 1993 -2- Assistant Engineer in the year 1981. Subsequently, vide order dated 8.2.1990 he was promoted and granted deemed date of promotion as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 14.7.1981 i.e. from the date his junior namely Sh.Bhagwan Singh had joined as Assistant Engineer. As per office order dated 8.2.1990 it was clearly stipulated therein that the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of pay from 14.7.1981 to the date when he actually joined the promoted post but his pay would be protected. The petitioner, accordingly, joined on the post of Assistant Engineer with the Board on 15.3.1992. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that his salary has not been fixed by the Board in the appropriate pay scale as admissible to the post of Assistant Engineer and further he has been denied the benefit of increments in the pay scale of such promoted post.
It is also the assertion of the petitioner that the Board had revised the pay scale of the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1.4.1979 vide office order no.230 dated 25.2.1981. The petitioner had duly exercised his option w.e.f. 1.4.1979 under formula B. Later the Board yet again revised the pay scale of the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1.4.1979 vide office order no.303 dated 12.4.1982. As per petitioner as there was no change in the pay scale of the petitioner in order no.303 as such he did not exercise any fresh option in the light of the fact that he had already exercised his option under earlier order no.230 dated 25.2.1981. The petitioner has raised a grievance in the petition that the Board did not fix the salary of the petitioner under order no.230 but to the contrary had fixed the same under office order no.303 dated 22.4.1982 and had also made an entry to such effect in his service book.
CWP No. 4142 of 1993 -3-
A written statement was duly filed on behalf of the Board. As regards the fixation of pay in the pay scale of Junior Engineer is concerned, a clear stand was taken that by virtue of fixation of pay vide office order no.303 dated 12.4.1982 the pay scale of the post of Junior Engineer was enhanced to Rs.700-1250 w.e.f. 1.4.1979 as opposed to Rs.600-1100 vide office order no.230. Mr. Narender Hooda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board as such makes a submission that to such extent the prayer of the petitioner is quite extra ordinary in as much as he is seeking a revision for a grant of pay scale on the post of Junior Engineer which in fact would be on a lower side than the one already granted by the Board. Faced with such a situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes a statement that he does not wish to press his prayer as regards quashing of the action of the Board regarding fixation of his salary on the post of Junior Engineer in terms of order no.230 dated 25.2.1981.
As regards the other claim of the petitioner regarding fixation of the salary in the pay scale of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 14.7.1981 is concerned, there can be no valid basis to deny the same to him. Admittedly, the petitioner had been denied the promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer and was thereafter promoted vide order dated 8.2.1990 and granted a deemed date of promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 14.7.1981 i.e. the date on which his junior had been promoted. That can be no cogent basis to deny to the petitioner a notional fixation of pay and to grant such benefit against the post of Assistant Engineer to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.7.1981 i.e. his deemed date of promotion against the higher post. Undoubtedly, there was a categoric stipulation in the order dated 8.2.1990 that he would not be paid arrears on the post of Assistant Engineer from CWP No. 4142 of 1993 -4- 14.7.1981 i.e. the deemed date of promotion till the date of his actually joining the higher post. The petitioner had joined the post of Assistant Engineer on 15.3.1992 having accepted such condition and as such it would not lie in his mouth to claim the actual arrears for the period w.e.f. 14.7.1981 to 15.3.1992 and more so because he had never discharged the duties of the higher post for such period.
The Board in its reply has sought to justify that denial of grant of increments to the petitioner on the higher post of Assistant Engineer on the ground that the petitioner had remained under suspension from 28.5.1990 to 31.10.1990 which period was regularized by the competent authority by treating the same as leave of the kind due. A stand accordingly was taken by the Board that the petitioner was required to submit the leave application for the regularization of the said suspension period which had not been submitted and even the duty certificate had not been submitted. The petitioner duly filed a replication to the written statement stating therein that he had already submitted the requisite certificate and the Board had acted arbitrarily in as much as his suspension period i.e. From 25.5.1990 to 31.10.1990 had been regularized and had been ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due after three years of the order and that too upon his having filed the present writ petition in this Court.
The petitioner having been promoted vide order dated 8.2.1990 on the higher post of Assistant Engineer, he having joined on such higher post w.e.f. 15.3.1992, the petitioner will be vested with a right for the grant of increments on the higher post in accordance with rules. The action of the Board in withholding the increments on the post of Assistant Engineer from the date the petitioner had actually joined on the higher post i.e. w.e.f. CWP No. 4142 of 1993 -5- 15.3.1992 will be termed as illegal and unsustainable in law.
In the light of the above discussion, the present petition is partly allowed. The respondent-Board is directed to notionally fix the salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Engineer as per rules w.e.f. 14.7.1981 i.e. the deemed date of promotion granted to the petitioner. The Board shall also grant to the petitioner increments in the pay scale of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date the petitioner had actually joined the higher post i.e. 15.3.1992. In view of the fact that the petitioner had joined service with the Board way back in the year 1969 and by now would have certainly superannuated, the consequential benefit of revision of his retiral benefits be also carried out. It is further directed that the benefit in terms of the directions aforementioned be computed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the necessary monetary benefit be released to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.
Petition is allowed in the terms aforesaid. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 21.12.2011.
lucky Whether to be reported? Yes.