Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sadhu Ram Gupta vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2000
Author: Nirmal Singh
Bench: Nirmal Singh
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J.
1. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents f to 3 to treat the petitioners on deputation and to allow deputation allowance.
The facts as set out in the petition are as under :-
Two unusual occurrences took place in Punjab and Haryana at Chowk Mehta and at Chando Kalan respectively in September, 1981. The State Governments appointed Inquiry Commissions. Justice Gurnam Singh, a retired Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court was appointed by the State of Haryana to head the Chando Kalan Inquiry Commission. Similarly, Justice P.S. Pattar, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed by the Government of Punjab as one-man Commission under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 with regard to the incident occurred at Chowk Mehta, Amritsar. The staff for these two commissions were sent from the Punjab & Haryana High Court on deputation. Justice P.S. Pattar accepted the terms and conditions as one-man Inquiry Commission for himself and the staff as allowed to Justice Gurnam Singh and the staff appointed by the State of Haryana for Chando Kalan Commission. It was on that undertaking conveyed to him by the Legal Remembrancer-cum- Secretary to Government, Punjab that Hon'ble Justice P.S. Pattar gave his final consent. Petitioner having been selected, approved and deputed joined their duties under respondent No. 2 on 4.2.1982 in view of the undertaking given by respondent No. 1.
The orders containing terms and conditions of the staff of Chando Kalan Commission and Mehta Chowk Commission were issued on 13.1.1982 and 6.3.1982 respectively. It was specifically provided under Item No. 1 in both the orders that the staff during the period of deputation will be entitled to deputation allowance @ 20% of their basic pay. The relevant portion of the said orders reads as under :-
Pay : During the period of deputation, in addition to the scale, they will be entitled to deputation allowance @ 20% of their basic pay."
that they would be allowed the same terms and conditions as meant for the staff of Chando Kalan Commission, but respondent No. 1 declined to treat the petitioner as on deputation..
2. It was pleaded that petitioners had to undergo financial losses. Petitioner No. 1 applied for Leave Travel Concession to respondent No. 1 and he (petitioner No. 1) was asked to approach the parent department. The parent department also declined the request of the petitioner for the grant of Leave Travel Concession on the ground for the grant of Leave Travel Concession on ground that he was not on the Establishment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at the relevant time and was on deputation. The State of Punjab through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice informed Justice Pattar vide D.O. Letter No. 32/3/81-4H(II)/6120 dated 8.4.1983 that the staff attached to him cannot be granted the deputation allowance.
3. Petitioners have prayed that the order of respondent No. 1 is illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the undertaking given by respondents 1 & 2.
4. Respondents have filed written statements and admitted that petitioners were appointed with the Inquiry Commission on 4.2.1982. It was further pleaded that petitioners were appointed against the posts created with a definite pay scales. They cannot claim anything beyond that as a matter of right. It was also pleaded that no undertaking was given by the State Government that the petitioner shall be paid anything beyond the grade of the post and there is no provision in any Rule by which the same could be claimed by them as a matter of right. The Government was competent to determine the scale and other emoluments of the posts and on appointment against the same the petitioners could only get such emoluments as admissible in the orders sanctioning the posts. It was also admitted that Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court in his letter No. 5354-EI dated 6.3.1982 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Home Department, proposed various terms of deputation including grant of 20% deputation allowance for acceptance by the Punjab Government. The Registrar was duly informed in writing that it was not possible to consider the High Court staff on deputation for allowing them deputation allowance etc.
5. It was also pleaded that petitioners were promoted in the High Court w.e.f. 4.2.1982 vide order dated 11.2.1982 against the posts sanctioned with the Commission. Thus the petitioners drew higher emoluments than what they would have drawn in their parent department, if they were not appointed against the posts sanctioned for the Commission of Inquiry.
6. 1 have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is no dispute between the parties that petitioners have not worked with one-man Commission of Inquiry to look into the circumstances leading to the fire incident at Chowk Mehta, Amritsar.
8. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1982, two unusual incidents happened; one in Chando Kalan, Haryana and other in Chowk Mehta, District Amritsar. Justice Gurnam Singh, retired Judge of this Court had been appointed as One Man Commission of Inquiry with regard to the incident occurred at Chando Kalan whereas Justice P.S. Pattar, a retired Judge of this Court had been appointed as One Man Commission of Inquiry to look into the circumstances leading to Chowk Mehta firing incident. The terms and conditions of both the Commissions were the same. The Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court wrote a letter No. 5354.E.I. dated 6.3.1982 to the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Home Department, Chandigarh for the acceptance of the terms and conditions by the Government of Punjab. Clause I of the letter reads that during the period of deputation, in addition to pay scale, they will be entitled to deputation allowance @ 20% of their basic pay.
9. Shri Rajesh Chhabra, the then Joint Home Secretary wrote a D.O. letter No. 32/3/81-4H(II)/11072 dated 23.6.1982 to the Joint Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Secretariat Administration (E.II Branch), which reads as under :-
"Please refer to letter No.(1)-IEH-82 dated 7.6.1982 on the above cited subject.
The above matter has again been considered in the Home Department. This is for your information that Mr. Justice P.S. Pattar was not prepared to work as one-man Commission of Inquiry in this case and it was as a special request of the Government that Mr. Justice P.S. Pattar agreed to hold this enquiry. He had demanded the same facilities for himself and his staff which were provided to Justice Gurnam Singh who is acting as one-man Commission of Inquiry in the Chando Kalan incident in Haryana. The necessary sanction of the Government of Haryana is already on the record. It would not be, therefore, correct to treat the High Court staff not on deputation to the Secretariat. Since the staff has come on deputation, their request for grant of deputation allowance has to be legally considered and the reasons mentioned in the above letter that they have been promoted and that is sufficient financial gain is not correct observation under the CSR. I have discussed this matter with Shri Amrik Singh Pooni, IAS, Home Secretary, Punjab and he has directed me to make another reference on behalf of the Home Department. This matter may be reconsidered and keeping in view that the staff would be appointed only for a period of 7 to 8 months and similar benefits have already been granted by the Haryana Government so that stand taken by the Punjab Govt. may not result in discrimination.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that Justice P.S. Pattar wrote a D.O. letter No. 1 dated 10.1.1983 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab. The relevant portion of which, reads as under :-
"As the time of my appointment as Commission of Inquiry, I was assured by the Government through the Law Secretary Shri Aftab Singh Bakshi that myself and my staff which is from the High Court would be given the same terms and conditions by the Punjab Government as would be allowed by the Haryana Government to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurnam Singh, Chando Kalan Commission of Inquiry and its staff which is also from the High Court. It was in pursuance of this undertaking that the terms and conditions allowed to me by the Punjab Government vide its order dated 28.1.1982 wee revised on 13.5.1982 to bring them at par with these allowed by the Haryana Government to Chando Kalan Commission of Enquiry. So far as my staff is concerned, the Punjab Government had declined to allow them the same terms and conditions as have been allowed by the Haryana Government to the staff attached to the Chando Kalan Commission of Inquiry. Mr. Rajesh Chhabra, IAS, who was very much aware of the undertaking given by the Government at that time addressed a D.O. letter dated 23.6.1982 (copy enclosed) to the Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, Secretariat Administration in pursuance to which the matter regarding the grant of deputation allowance was discussed in a meeting between the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Finance Secretary on 5.10.1982. It is learnt that they have declined to grant the allowance.
In view of the fact that the Commission is for a very short duration, the amount of deputation allowance for the entire staff will be less than Rs. 1500/- p.m., two posts (a clerk and a peon) though sanctioned, yet I am pulling on without them which is a net saving of at least Rs. 1300/- p.m. to the Government and the Government as mentioned above being bound by its undertaking should honour it."
From the contents of the letters, it is crystal clear that the Government has given an undertaking that the terms and conditions of the staff will be the same as that of Chando Kalan Commission.
11. At the hearing, it was not denied that the staff of Chando Kalan Commission was not getting the deputation allowance, which was also deputed by the Pun- jab & Haryana High Court. In the letter written by Joint Home Secretary referred to above, it has been clearly indicated that Justice P.S. Pattar has agreed to hold the Inquiry with regard to the incident of Mehta Chowk, if he and his staff is provided the same facilities, as have been provided to Justice Gurnam Singh of Chando Kalan Commission. Shri Rajesh Chabbra in his D.O. letter has mentioned that it would not be correct to treat the High Court staff not on deputation to the Secretariat.
12. It is evident from the two letters referred to above that Justice Pattar has agreed to hold the Inquiry only in case, he and his staff is provided the same facilities, as have been provided to Justice Gurnam Singh and his staff posted at Chando Kalan Commission. If the assurance has not been given to Justice P.S. Pattar, he would not have agreed to hold the Inquiry.
13. The staff of Chando Kalan Commission was admittedly getting deputation allowance @ 20% of the basic pay, therefore, the staff of Mehta Chowk Commission cannot be denied the same benefit.
14. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition is accepted with costs of Rs. 2000/-. Respondents 1 and 3 are directed to consider the staff of Mehta Chowk Commission at par with Chando Kalan Commission staff and pay them the deputation allowance.
15. Petition allowed.