Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State And Others vs Ajit Singh on 5 September, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Regular Second Appeal No. 3127 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Regular Second Appeal No. 3127 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 5.9.2011
Punjab State and Others
... Appellants
Versus
Ajit Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. N.S. Virk, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, for the appellants.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Regular Second Appeal No. 3127 of 2011 The appellants, defendants to the suit, having failed in two rounds of litigation, have filed the present regular second appeal.
Admittedly, Ajit Singh, respondent/plaintiff, after rendering about 20 years of service (from 26.8.1968 to 13.5.1992) in the Army, had joined the Department of Police, Punjab, as a Constable on 13.5.1992. He claimed that his pay was not rightly fixed. He had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to re-fixation of pay over and above the pay lastly drawn by him from Army, therefore, he be given benefits of the services rendered by him in the Army. The respondent/plaintiff stated that at the time of joining of service in Police Department, Punjab, his salary ought to have been fixed as per Rule Regular Second Appeal No. 3127 of 2011 (O&M) 2 7.20 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). However, the appellants/defendants had taken a stand that the above said Rule was omitted w.e.f. 21.7.1993, thus, no benefit would accrue to the respondent/plaintiff under the above said Rules.
The trial Court has relied upon the testimony of DW.1 Lakhbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Amritsar and had noticed as under:-
"18. DW.1 Lakhbir Singh, DSP, in the cross- examination before the case was remanded has deposed that Ajit Singh plaintiff joined the Punjab Police on 13.5.1992. He also admitted that the plaintiff was retired from Military Service w.e.f. 31.3.1989. He also admitted that the plaintiff joined the Punjab Police being ex-serviceman. He also admitted that at that time prevalent time scale was ` 950/` 1,800. He also admitted that pay posting of the ex-serviceman to be fixed according to Rule 7.20 Punjab Civil Services Rule Vol.I. He also admitted that pay scale of the plaintiff should have been according to said rules. He also admitted that rule 7.20 Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume 2 has been deleted vide notification dated 18.9.1993 w.e.f. 6.12.1992. He also admitted that SSP Amritsar wrote a letter to the DIG Border Range, Amritsar, vide No.2452-A dated 3.2.1995 regarding fixation of pay of Ajit Singh which is Ex.PW.1/19. He also Regular Second Appeal No. 3127 of 2011 (O&M) 3 admitted that department has refixed pay of other employees on different accounts. He also admitted that Constable Ashwani Kumar No. 2308 has joined Punjab Police on 21.10.1992. He also admitted that the plaintiff Ajit Singh retired from the Punjab Police on 31.3.2006. After the case was remanded one Avtar Singh who was DSP (D) stated that he had not brought the original notification dated 8th/21st July, 1993 nor he has brought the attested copy of the said notification...."
The Court has further held that at the time of joining of his service, Rule 7.20 (b) of the Rules was prevailing and therefore, his salary ought to have been fixed according to the prevailing Rules and furthermore the omission of Rule 7.20 would not have retrospective consequence and it would only be prospective. All those employees, names of various persons have been given in the judgment, who had taken benefit of Rule 7.20(b) of the Rules, were not deprived of what they had gained because of this Rule. Therefore, the Court has held that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to benefits of application of Rules as its omission cannot be applied retrospectively. This finding, given by the trial Court, has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has not been able to show any proposition of law or cited any judgment to the effect that the reasoning advanced by both the Courts below is faulty or suffers from any infirmity. Had the authorities applied the Rules on the day the respondent/plaintiff joined service, his salary ought to have been fixed in Regular Second Appeal No. 3127 of 2011 (O&M) 4 a higher pay scale and he would have continued to enjoy the benefits which had accrued to him because of the Rules. Admittedly, Rule 7.20 was omitted in the year 1993, therefore, on the day, the respondent/plaintiff joined service, he was entitled to the benefit of the said Rule. Since learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has not formulated any question of law, much less a substantial one, during the course of arguments for consideration, this Court is not in a position to say that reasoning given by both the Courts below that omission of the Rule would only apply prospectively, is wrong and unjust.
Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
Civil Misc. No. 8602-C of 2011 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 145 days in filing of the appeal.
Since the appeal has been dismissed, no separate orders are required to be passed in the present application.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 5, 2011 "DK"