Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Lal Kochar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127092
114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 25
25-09-2024
1. CM
CM-15553-CWP-2024 in/and
RA
RA-CW-396 of 2024 in/and
CWP No.12638 of 2022
MOHAN LAL KOCHHAR ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
1. CM
CM-15562-CWP-2024 in/and
RA
RA-CW-397 of 2024 in/and
CWP No.7695 of 2021
KULWINDER SINGH ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate and
Ms. Ishani, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner(s).
Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG Haryana for
Respondent Nos.1,3, 5 and 8.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate
for respondent Nos.4 and 6.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
CM-15553 15553-CWP-2024 in RA-CW-396 396 of 2024 and CM-15562 15562-CWP-2024 in RA-CW-397 397 of 2024 Present applications have been filed for condoning the delay of 273 days in filing the review applications.
Notice of the applications to the counsel opposite.
1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2024 14:56:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127092 CM-15553-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-396 of 2024 in/and CWP No.12638 of 2022 (O&M) CM-15562-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-397 of 2024 in/and CWP No.7695 of 2021 (O&M) -2- Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents Nos.1, 3, 5 and 8 and Mr. Prtitam Saini, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present applications.
Keeping in view the above, the applications are allowed. Delay of 273 days in filing the review applications is condoned. RA-CW-396 of 2024 in CWP No.12638 of 2022 and RA-CW-397 of 2024 in CWP No.7695 of 2021 The present review applications have been filed for recalling the order dated 30.10.2023 passed in both the petitions.
Learned counsel for the review-petitioners submits that all the issues raised in the present set of petitions were not decided while passing the order dated 30.10.2023 hence, the order dated 30.10.2023 is liable to be recalled.
Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG Haryana appears and accepts notice of behalf of respondent Nos.1,3, 5 and 8 and Pritam Saini, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 6 and submits that the case was argued and all the arguments which were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have been considered and order was passed hence, no review should be entertained now.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2024 14:56:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127092 CM-15553-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-396 of 2024 in/and CWP No.12638 of 2022 (O&M) CM-15562-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-397 of 2024 in/and CWP No.7695 of 2021 (O&M) -3- It may be noticed that the order was dictated in the presence of the parties in open court. Whatever arguments were raised on the said date, the same were taken into consideration and appropriate order was passed. In case, any argument which was not raised during the hearing, it is deemed to have been waived. Once, it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the hearing on the said date, any argument qua the validity of the substituted order dated 24.12.2020 was raised, the same cannot be made the subject matter of the review. Further, the writ petition was argued on behalf of the petitioners by a particular counsel whereas, the review is being filed by another counsel though, he was also the counsel for the petitioners but did not appear on the relevant date to address the arguments.
Though, there is no justification for the recalling of the order dated 30.10.2023 but as, the Courts are expected to do justice to the parties so as to decide all the arguments, which the parties have raised, in the interest of justice, the said order dated 30.10.2023 is recalled and the review applications are allowed. On the request of the counsel, and the main set of two petitions are being decided again.
CWP No.7695 of 2021 and CWP No.12638 of 2022 Present set of two writ petitions involve common question of law in the background of common set of facts and thus they are being decided by a common order.
3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2024 14:56:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127092 CM-15553-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-396 of 2024 in/and CWP No.12638 of 2022 (O&M) CM-15562-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-397 of 2024 in/and CWP No.7695 of 2021 (O&M) -4- In the present set of petitions, the grievance of the petitioner(s) is that they are entitled for honorarium keeping in view the fact that they are retrenched employees and the retrenched employees are entitled for honorarium as per the Notification dated 24.12.2020, which has been issued by the Government of Haryana, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that once the petitioners are concededly the retrenched employees of HSMITC and were adjusted with other Government Departments, they are entitled for the grant of honorarium as detailed in the said order dated 30.10.2023.
In reply to the said claim of the petitioners, the respondents have filed the reply wherein the respondents have stated that though, initially the Instructions dated 24.12.2020 were issued with regard to the grant of honorarium but later on, as certain facts came to the notice of the authorities concerned, the said Instructions dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-4) were substituted by the Instructions date 24.12.2020, copy of which has been appended as Annexure R3/1 and according to the said substituted Instructions R3/1, the employees who were adjusted in other organisation but they had not joined the same or resigned from the said Institution before attaining the age of superannuation, the honorarium was not admissible and as in the present case, one of the petitioner namely Kulwinder Singh joined the Institution but abandoned the job within a period of one month after he was transferred to another place and never retired from the Government service and with regard to the petitioner Mohan Lal Kochhar, though he was 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2024 14:56:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127092 CM-15553-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-396 of 2024 in/and CWP No.12638 of 2022 (O&M) CM-15562-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-397 of 2024 in/and CWP No.7695 of 2021 (O&M) -5- offered job but he never accepted the same hence, the grant of honorarium will not be admissible to the petitioners.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
The first question which arises for adjudication before this Court is with regard to the substitution of the Instructions dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P4) by the Instructions dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure R3/1) with different stipulations, is valid or not?
It may be noticed that the Government can substitute any Instruction/Notification order in case, in the earlier Instruction, something could not be mentioned and the implementation of the initial Instruction is causing undue benefits to the beneficiaries of the initial Instructions.
In the present case, the honorarium is to be given to an employee, who was earlier retrenched from HSMITC and had joined the post in a Government Institution and thereafter retired so that, the said employee is at least entitled to some honorarium after his retirement to lead a dignified life. The purpose of the same is that in case, the employee has worked with the Government upto the date of retirement after being retrenched from HSMITC, some benefits should be extended to the said employee. The idea behind the Instruction dated 24.12.2020 was only to help the employees, who have retired from Government service after being absorbed in the Government job keeping in view their retrenchment from the HSMITC.
5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2024 14:56:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127092 CM-15553-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-396 of 2024 in/and CWP No.12638 of 2022 (O&M) CM-15562-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-397 of 2024 in/and CWP No.7695 of 2021 (O&M) -6- The Amendment to the Instructions dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-4) as done vide Annexure R3/1 is to oust the employees, who either did not join the Government service or left the Government service in between before retirement. The petitioners belong to the said class of employee hence, the petitioners cannot demand a particular benefit which is only admissible to employee serving the State who retires from a post with State Government. The petitioners never served the State so as to entitle them for the benefit of honorarium, which is being extended by the State to a retrenched employee, who after being retrenched from HSMITC, also served the State till the retirement.
The idea behind the issuance of the Instructions dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-4), as modified by the substituted Instructions Annexure R3/1 of the same date, has a valid purpose behind the same. The petitioners cannot claim the honorarium from the Government, if they have never served the Government or have served the Government but have left the job prior to the retirement.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the substituted Instructions should have been issued from a different date instead substituting the initial Instructions dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-4).
Even if, the substituted Instruction dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure R3/1) has been given the same date, there is no illegality as, the respondents only substituted their earlier decision. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no mala fide attached with the substituted Instruction, as being claimed by the petitioners in the present set of petitions. It is not 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2024 14:56:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127092 CM-15553-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-396 of 2024 in/and CWP No.12638 of 2022 (O&M) CM-15562-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-397 of 2024 in/and CWP No.7695 of 2021 (O&M) -7- the case that the present petitioners have been harmed or prejudiced by the substituted Instructions in any manner as, from the facts which have been narrated hereinafter, the substituted Instruction is only to achieve the purpose for which Annexure P-4 was issued. No benefit was ever extended to the petitioners under initial Instructions (Annexure P-4) so as to be withdrawn under substituted Instructions (Annexure R3/1) Hence, while examining the claim of the petitioners, the Instruction dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure R3/1) is to be taken into account which is a substituted Instruction and not the initial Instruction Annexure P-4. Once, the petitioner-Mohan Lal Kochhar in CWP No.12638 of 2022 never joined the Government after being retrenched from HSMITC, the said petitioner cannot claim any benefit extended by the Government to the employees who worked with the Government and then retired.
Similar is the case of petitioner-Kulwinder Singh in CWP No.7695 of 2021, who only worked for one month after being absorbed in the Government Department and abandoned the job after being transferred. An employee, who never served the Government or abandoned the job offered by the Government, cannot claim the honorarium to be given by the Government to the employees, who had served the Government until their retirement.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the earlier Instruction Annexure P-4 was approved upto the Chief Secretary level whereas the substituted decision Annexure R3/1 has not been approved by the Chief Secretary/Finance Department.
7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2024 14:56:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127092 CM-15553-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-396 of 2024 in/and CWP No.12638 of 2022 (O&M) CM-15562-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-397 of 2024 in/and CWP No.7695 of 2021 (O&M) -8- The said argument has been raised on the basis of the notice dated 10.05.2021which the petitioners have now appended as Annexure P-8 in CWP No.7695 of 2021 with the review petition and as Annexure P-10 in CWP No.12638 of 2022, The said notice clearly states that the Finance Department has already given approval to the said decision of substitution of the initial Institution (Annexure P-4) with (Annexure R3/1). Once, the Finance Department has given the approval to the said decision which is noted in Annexure P-8/10 hence, it cannot be said that the substituted Instruction Annexure R3/1, was issued or was being implemented without their being any authority from the Department of Finance.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while substituting the Instructions, the hearing could have been given to the petitioners who were eligible under the un-amended Instruction (Annexure P4).
It may be noticed that Instruction Annexure P-4 was never implemented qua the petitioners so as to extend him any benefit. It is only in case any benefit is sought to be withdrawn which has already been extended to an employee, the notice is required to be given. Here, the respondents, before implementing the Instruction Annexure P-4, realised that something has been missed in Annexure P-4 and the said Instruction was substituted by Instruction Annexure R3/1 and once, no benefit had been extended to the petitioners in terms of the original Instruction, there was no requirement of any hearing to be given to the petitioners.
8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2024 14:56:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127092 CM-15553-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-396 of 2024 in/and CWP No.12638 of 2022 (O&M) CM-15562-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-397 of 2024 in/and CWP No.7695 of 2021 (O&M) -9- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employees who had got voluntary retirement after being absorbed in the Government Department have been given the benefit of the decision dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure R-3/1) whereas the said benefit has not been extended to the petitioners.
It may be noticed that the decision Annexure R-3/1 is implementable after a person retires whether on attaining the age of superannuation or after getting voluntary retirement.
The petitioners cannot equate themselves with a retired/voluntary retired personnel as, one of the petitioner never joined the Government service and the other petitioner abandoned the job after joining the Government service hence, the petitioners cannot claim equality with one namely Kusum Lata.
No other argument is raised.
Keeping in view of above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court.
Hence, the present set of petitions stands dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
25-09-2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES/NO
Whether reportable: YES/NO
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2024 14:56:18 :::