Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Haryana State Cooperative Supply & ... vs Jai Pal Singh on 19 March, 2013
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 482 of 2010
Date of Decision: 19.03.2013
The Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Jai Pal Singh, Junior Engineer and others ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Ramesh Narang, Advocate, for the respondents.
****
A.K.SIKRI C.J.(Oral)
The factual matrix which are not in dispute can be recapitulated in brief as under:-
2. Implementing the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1986, initially the Junior Engineers were given the pay scales of ` 1400-2300. At that time there was no selection grade. The grievance of the Junior Engineers was that the pay scales were not appropriately implemented and they were entitled to the pay scale of ` 1640-2900/-. The matter was referred to the Anomaly Committee which found that there was an anomaly and these Junior Engineers were entitled to the pay scale of ` 1640-2900. The pay scale of ` 1640-2900 was accordingly given to these Junior Engineers. However, it was not given from 01.01.1986 but from a later date. Many cases came to be filed claiming the benefit from 01.01.1986 which was granted by Court orders and those orders were LPA No. 482 of 2010 [2] implemented. The result thereof was that all these Junior Engineers were placed in the pay scale of ` 1640-2900/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. There is no quarrel upto this as the position stood finally settled/decided. However, it so happened that these Junior Engineers also demanded selection grade. This matter whether these Junior Engineers should be given the selection grade or not was again referred to a Committee and on that basis a decision was taken to grant selection grade to 50% of the Junior Engineers by the appellant-federation as well which benefit was extended to the employees of the State Government and other autonomous bodies. The Appellant Federation had decided to give this benefit from 01.04.1991. The respondents who are employees of the Appellant-Federation wanted this benefit also from 01.01.1986 and for this purpose they filed the writ petition which had been allowed by the learned Single Judge. Against that order, the present appeal is preferred.
3. The outcome of the issue would depend upon the question as to whether it was an anomaly which sought to be removed by granting the selection grade or it was the benefit given for the first time. The principle of law is well settled in this behalf by series of judgments of the Supreme Court which were taken note of by this Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 951 of 2012 decided on 31.10.2012 titled as State of Haryana and another Vs. R.K.Verma and others. The position was summed up in the following manner:-
"6. The aforesaid proposition of law, namely, when there is an anomaly and it is to be removed, the same is to be given effect from the date when the anomaly had arisen is beyond any pale of controversy. However, on the other hand, when the government decides to give or confer some new benefit to the LPA No. 482 of 2010 [3] employees, it has right to fix the date from which it has to be given. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, what is to be determined in the present case is, as to whether order dated 01.08.2000 was issued to confer a benefit of higher pay scale to the Head Master/Head Mistress and, thus, the government had right to fix that date or this was done to remove the anomaly."
4. In the present case, the conceded position is that there was no selection grade for Junior Engineers earlier. It has been introduced for the first time by the Appellant Federation. When that is the position and it was not a case of removal of anomaly, whenever a new benefit is conferred by the Employer upon the employees it is the prerogative of the employees to fix the cut off date from which the said benefit would enure to them. The fixation of cut off date as 01.04.1991 by the Appellant Federation, when the decision in question was taken, therefore, cannot be found fault with. An identical issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in R.K.Verma's case (supra). Following that judgment we allow this appeal and set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondents herein.
(A.K.SIKRI)
CHIEF JUSTICE
19.03.2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
'ravinder' JUDGE