Punjab-Haryana High Court
K.C.Arora And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 October, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
I.
Civil Writ Petition No.8216 of 2012
Date of decision: 29.10.2013
K.C.Arora and others
..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondent(s)
II.
Civil Writ Petition No.8724 of 2012
Date of decision: 29.10.2013
Rajesh Sharma and others
..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondent(s)
III.
Civil Writ Petition No.9290 of 2012
Date of decision: 29.10.2013
Rajeev Kumar Nakra and others
..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondent(s)
Kumar Paritosh
2013.11.14 12:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP No.8216 of 2012 and 2 connected CWPs 2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Kiran Rathee, Advocate
for the petitioners (CWP No.8216 of 2012 & 8724 of 2012).
Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners (CWP No.9290 of 2012)
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana
*****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
This order will dispose of three connected petitions, i.e., CWP No.8216 of 2012, CWP No.8724 of 2012 and CWP No.9290 of 2012 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, the facts are culled out from CWP No.8216 of 2012.
2. The petitioners are either retired or serving employees of the PWB, B & R Department, Haryana. They were placed in the selection grade of Rs 4100-5300 prior to 1.1.1996. However, while revising the pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, the petitioners were granted the pay scale of Rs 12000-16500. When they were granted selection grade, they were placed in the master scale in the pay scale of Rs 4100-5300. Following acceptance of the recommendations of the Pay Commission, the pay scale of Rs 4100- 5300 was on scale to scale revision pushed to Rs 13500-17250. The petitioners are aggrieved by the down scaling of pay to Rs 12000-16500.
3. It has been argued that some engineers serving in the sister Kumar Paritosh 2013.11.14 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8216 of 2012 and 2 connected CWPs 3 departments of the Haryana Government i.e. the Irrigation Department and the Public Health, Engineering Department who were also granted the selection grade of Rs 4100-5300 limited to 20% of the cadre prior to 1.1.1996 and who had retired prior to 1.1.1996, had their pension fixed in the corresponding pay scale of Rs 12000-16500 on superannuation. They were also aggrieved. They approached this Court for re-fixation of their pension by treating them as having retired in the scale of Rs 13500-17250 which was the corresponding scale to the previous scale of Rs 4100-5300. The writ petition was numbered CWP No.5520 of 2013; S.P.Sood v. State of Haryana. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 2.2.2009, the text of the judgment has been placed as Annexure P-4. On the same line of reasoning, three other connected writ petitions were also allowed on 17.3.2011 vide a common judgment (P-5).
4. Mr. Malik, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that besides the above, the controversy raised stands settled by the decision rendered in LPA No.930 of 2010; State of Haryana and another v. Dr. K.L.Kumar and others decided on 10.8.2010. This Court has taken the view that those who were in the selection grade of Rs 4100-5300 before 1.1.1996, are entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs13500-17250 on revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996.
5. Besides, one Shri T.C.Goyal, who was in receipt of pay scale of 4100-5300 prior to 1.1.1996 and had retired on 28.2.1997 had approached this Court claiming that his pension is required to be fixed in the scale of Rs 13500-17250 and not Rs 12000-16500. His writ petition bearing CWP No.19865 of 2009 was allowed by this Court on 27.1.2012. Mr. Malik Kumar Paritosh submits that there is sufficient weight of judicial precedent in his clients 2013.11.14 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8216 of 2012 and 2 connected CWPs 4 favour and the ratio of the aforesaid cases governs this case as well.
6. More recently, an appellate bench of this Court speaking through brother Surya Kant, J. in LPA No.797 of 2013; the State of Haryana and others v. S.P.Gupta decided on 26.4.2013 after considering the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 held as under : -
"11. There is also no denial to the fact that the pay scales of Government employees were further revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 and against the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.4100-5300, the corresponding revised pay-scale granted under the new rules was Rs.13500-375-17250. The re- spondent was denied the afore-stated revised pay scale only on the premise that the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.4100-5300 was a functional pay scale for the post of Superintending Engineer and not for the post of Executive Engineer held by him. On the other hand, the case of the respondent was that since he was actually drawing the pay scale of Rs.4100-5300 after rendering 12 years of serv- ice, he was entitled to the corresponding revised pay scale.
12. Learned Single Judge has upheld the re- spondent's contention and in our considered view rightly so. Once the Rules Making Authority has chosen to provide a corresponding revised pay scale in the tabulated form, the employee cannot be denied the same unless limitations are ex- pressly discernible under those Rules. The appel- lants have relied upon another set of rules known as "The Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998" which are apparently Kumar Paritosh 2013.11.14 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8216 of 2012 and 2 connected CWPs 5 inapplicable in the matter of revision of pay scales and are only meant to address the situation where an employee stands stagnated and is entitled to be placed in the higher promotional pay scale though he is not actually promoted to a higher post. How- ever, once the pay revision rules prescribe differ- ent stages or time-scale(s), whether described as 'selection grade' or 'supertime-grade' and it has been granted to an employee on fulfillment of eli- gibility conditions, he would on the further revi- sion of pay-scales, be entitled to the correspond- ing revised pay scale. He cannot be deemed to be reverted to his original time scale of entry level for the purpose of his placement in the corre- sponding revised pay scale as such an action shall amount to the withdrawal of the benefit which the employee was drawing before the revised pay scales came into force."
7. The appellate bench has followed its earlier ruling in LPA No.797 of 2013 and 804 of 2013 in LPA No.146 of 2013; State of Haryana and another v. Chander Singh Sharma decided on 29.8.2013.
8. Mr. Nehra, on the other hand, contends that the aforesaid decisions have not been correctly decided inasmuch as due attention was not paid to the specific provisions of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998. He submits that any emoluments of the Government servant and his service conditions are governed by statutory rules which may be unilaterally changed by the Government without the consent of the employee. He relies on the provisions of rule 2(h) of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 which reads as follows : -
"2(h). Government servants who are Kumar Paritosh 2013.11.14 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8216 of 2012 and 2 connected CWPs 6 drawing their pay in a pay scale as personal measures (other than the functional pay scale prescribed for the post held by the Government servants) with effect from the date on which he started drawing his pay in the pay scale as a personal measure and till the time he drew his pay in the pay scale as a personal measure."
9. He submits that what the petitioners are really demanding is the functional pay scale of Rs 13500-17250 which is meant for the post of Superintending Engineer which is a promotional post of an Executive Engineer. He points to the First Schedule, Part-II to the 1998 rules (R-3) to show that scale of Rs 4100-5300 falls at Serial No.23 which is an existing functional pay scale in Haryana which has been revised to Rs 13500-17250. If the petitioners had been granted the selection grade available to 20% of the senior most of the Executive Engineer cadre, they held substantively the lower post, for which, the prescribed pay scale was Rs 12000-16500 and this aspect has not been considered in the above judgments.
10. The submission of Mr. Nehra does not appear to be correct. These issues have been decided. He appears to misread the many decisions including most pointedly S.P.Gupta's case (supra) on the point.
11. I would respectfully apply the law laid down in the aforesaid cases and in S.P. Gupta's case (supra) and allow all these three writ petitions in the same terms.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents to re-fix the pay and pension of the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid precedents by giving them the benefit of the pay scale of Rs 13500-17250 from the due date. Let Kumar Paritosh 2013.11.14 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8216 of 2012 and 2 connected CWPs 7 this exercise be now done within 60 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order upon hearing, if felt necessary.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
October 29, 2013 JUDGE
Paritosh Kumar
Kumar Paritosh
2013.11.14 12:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document