Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal And Another vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 22 August, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.12650 of 1998 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12650 of 1998
Date of Decision:22/08/2013
Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal and another
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Kirti Singh, D.A.G. Haryana.
1. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.2.1996 (P-1). The order declines grant of Modified Higher Standard Pay Scale (MHSPS) of Rs.1640-2900 to the petitioners with effect from 1.8.1995 which scale was modified with effect from 1.4.1995. In short the petitioners claim the monetary benefit under the scheme from the date of next increment which fell due on 1.8.1995 and not from 1.4.1995. The claim is based on the plea that if the benefit is allowed from the date when increment falls due it will be financially more beneficial to the petitioners and they would become entitled to difference of arrears of salary and consequential re-fixation of pay and pension. Both the petitioners stand retired from service on superannuation.
Mr. Achint, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to draw a distinction between revision of pay and modification of pay. He submits that his clients opted within time under proviso to explanation of Rule 4.4 (c) (ii), Civil Service Rules, Vol. I Part-I for getting the Modified Higher Standard Pay Scales with effect from 1.8.1995. The modified pay scale was allowed by government with effect from 1.4.1995. The benefit was granted in lieu of ten years of service and was akin to Assured Career Progression benefits which Thakral Rajeev 2013.08.31 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.12650 of 1998 -2- scheme came later. The reason of rejection of request is spelt out in the impugned order and is self explicit. It reads as follows:
"Under Note given below Rule 4.4 (C) (ii) of Punjab Civil Services Rule Vol.I Part-I, the provisions made (Rule given) applies to revision of Grades whereas as per the Annexures enclosed with letter No.1/34/93-4 P.R. (FD) dated 8.2.94 of the Finance Department, the Scales given at Sr. No.1.13 and 14 were modified with effect from 1.4.95 the decision (provision made) given under the above mentioned Rule does not apply in this matter. Accordingly in such matters the benefit of Modified Higher Standard Pay Scale which was allowed on 1.4.1995 cannot be given to Mahabir Parsad Accountant and Puran Mal Verma while fixing their pay."
Mr. Achint then relies upon an office order passed by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Narnaul dated 8.1.1996 to submit that in the case of one Shri K.K. Bihagra, in the same office, the 2nd MHS pay scale was granted to him and his pay was fixed from the date of annual increment i.e. 1.5.1995 and not from 1.4.1995 as is being saddled on the petitioners from the effective/appointed date. The respondents have denied this document as one based on the correct legal position. This instance cannot be cited as a precedent or for this Court to compel the State to act in similar fashion in the case of the petitioners on principles of parity. A wrong cannot be perpetuated. It has been explained in the written statement that the service rules and the scheme of Higher Standard Pay Scales as modified with effect from 1.4.1995 operate in different fields. The HSPS/ MHSPS is a separate scheme which forms a complete code in itself for doling out a financial benefit which contains no provision for exercise of option to run the benefit from the date of increment which may fall between May to December or to complicate matters further from January to March. In short, State Government employees have no option to choose a date other than 1.4.1995 based on the fortuitous circumstance of date of increment which may vary from employee to employee depending on his date of entry into service or confirmation etc. It has further been explained in the written statement that the Higher Standard Pay Scales which is a scale higher than that of revised functional pay Thakral Rajeev 2013.08.31 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.12650 of 1998 -3- scales were allowed to the State Govt. employees to eliminate stagnation in promotions of employees of Group 'C' and 'D' categories after completion of 10/20 years regular satisfactory service. The scheme was given effect from 1.1.1994. The group 'C' employees holding the posts carrying pay scales of Rs.1400-2600 were allowed Ist Higher Standard Pay Scale of Rs.1600-2660 which was modified to Rs.1640-2900 with effect from Ist April, 1995.
The petitioners do not have a right under the scheme to choose a date other than the date the scheme has been made operative from. Operating the scheme from the date of increment would make it arbitrary and unreasonable since it would result in serious complications resulting from different starting points of grant of the declared financial benefit for different employees in the same department under the same scheme. Therefore, reliance on R. 4.4 (c) (ii) Civil Service Rules, Vol. I Part-I as applicable to Haryana in the present case is both misdirected and misplaced. The scheme operates independently on its own steam from one fixed date i.e. 1.4.1995 uniform to all such employees as have 10 years of regular satisfactory service to their credit without earning promotion and the fine distinction sought to be drawn between 'revision of pay' and 'modification of pay' by Mr. Achint would be a wasteful exercise in semantics.
There appears no real difference between the above two expressions in the text of the scheme and the context of concession handed down by the State to ameliorate the lot of its employees resulting from stagnation which may be slowly killing the desire to work. Being a concession based policy it has normally to be strictly construed.
The writ of certiorari is, therefore, not available to be issued in the present case in favour of the petitioners to give them undue benefit. I do not find any merit in this petition and would accordingly dismiss it. No costs.
22/08/2013 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
rajeev
Thakral Rajeev
JUDGE
2013.08.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh