Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishwar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 February, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 13.02.2012
C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011
Ishwar Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.13778 of 2011
Vijyender Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.13835 of 2011
Subhash Chand and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.14016 of 2011
Madan Lal and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.14053 of 2011
Ranbir Singh and another ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -2-
C.W.P.No.15291 of 2011
Ranbir Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.15657 of 2011
Madan Lal and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.15680 of 2011
Jagdish and another ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.15768 of 2011
Nafe Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.16881 of 2011
Surender Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.16900 of 2011
Joginder Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -3-
C.W.P.No.17815 of 2011
Mahabir Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.18739 of 2011
Babu Ram and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.18752 of 2011
Suresh Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.18761 of 2011
Pale Ram and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.13774 of 2011
Raj Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.18440 of 2011
Jai Pal and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -4-
C.W.P.No.17121 of 2011
Satyavadi and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.16934 of 2011
Rajbir and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP Nos.16934, 17121and 18440 of 2011.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
By this order I proposed to dispose of CWP Nos.17808, 13778, 13835, 14016, 14053, 15291, 15657, 15680, 15768, 16881, 16900, 17815, 18739, 18752, 18761, 13774, 18440, 17121 and 16934 of 2011 as common questions of facts and law are involved therein.
Facts are being taken from CWP No.17808 of 2011 wherein pleadings are complete and the stand of the respondents denying the benefit claimed by the petitioners stands projected. Petitioners undisputedly are C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -5- working on technical posts and since they were working on such posts, they were granted the pay-scale for which they were entitled to on the basis of various judgments passed by this Court. The lead case being CWP No.18754 of 1991 titled as Gurdev Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 18.01.2010. While implementing the judgment passed by this Court in various writ petitions including the above-mentioned writ, State of Haryana issued letter dated 9.8.2010. This letter although granted the claim which was made by the employees who were working on technical posts i.e. the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990 or from the date subsequent thereto when they joined the service. But the arrears of the said fixation of pay and subsequent revision thereof have been denied to them on the ground that while disposing of CWP No.10074 of 2010 and 10276 of 2010, this Court had not said a word about arrears and the entitlement of the petitioners therein. Basing on the said letter and judgments, petitioners have been granted the fixation of notional pay-scales as per their entitlement but the arrears have been denied to them. It is, at this stage, that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that the denial of arrears to the petitioners is primarily based upon the order passed by this Court in CWP No.10276 of 2010 titled as Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 27.5.2010. After passing of the said order and issuance of letter dated 9.8.2010, petitioners in that writ petition and connected writ petitions, where arrears were not granted to them, had specifically moved applications before this Court for modification of order dated 27.5.2010. Notice of the applications wherein the petitioners have C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -6- claimed arrears from the date of their entitlement of the pay-scale was issued to the respondents and upon hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court was pleased to restrict the claim of monetary benefits of the pay- scales to 38 months preceding the date of filing of the writ petitions vide order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-7). On this basis, counsel contends that the petitioners are entitled to arrears of pay after the fixation of pay as per the entitlement in same terms from the date of grant of pay fixation.
Counsel for the respondents, on the basis of the reply filed by the respondents, submit that the petitioners are not entitled to the arrears of revision of pay-scales as claimed by them as they have been granted the benefit as per letter dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P-6) which does not confer any right of arrears on the employees. He further contends that the petitioners are also not entitled to the arrears for the reason that they have approached this Court after an inordinate delay.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
Facts are not in dispute that the petitioners were granted the benefit of the pay-scales of technical posts and thereafter the revision of the pay-scale on notional basis in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra). Although in the said judgment, benefit of arrears of pay was granted from the date of their entitlement but this was done primarily because the petitioners in those writ petitions have approached the Court in the year 1991 itself and their claim was w.e.f.1.5.1990 but subsequently the petitioners have approached this Court by filing various writ petitions especially in the year 2010 after the decision in Gurdev Singh's case (supra). This Court initially while disposing of C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -7- CWP No.10074 of 2010 and 10276 of 2010 did not grant any arrears of pay fixation and revision but had only granted notional fixation thereof which was made the basis by the respondents for not granting the benefit of arrears of pay to the petitioners. However, they did not take into consideration the subsequent order dated 12.1.2011 passed by this Court in applications moved by the petitioners in CWP Nos.10074 of 2010 and 10276 of 2010 claiming the grant of arrears in the light of the judgment passed in Gurdev Singh's case (supra). Although the claim as made by the petitioners in those applications was not granted in toto but arrears were restricted to 38 months preceding from the date of filing the writ petitions. The respondents, while granting the benefit of the pay-scale to the petitioners on the technical posts held by them and fixing their notional pay taking into consideration the revision of the pay-scales subsequently, should have also taken into consideration the subsequent order dated 12.1.2011 passed by this Court in CM No.10597 of 2010 in CWP No.10276 of 2010 and other connected matters (Annexure P-7).
In view of the subsequent clarification by this Court, denial of arrears of pay fixation along with subsequent revision thereof prior to 38 months from the date of filing of writ petitions, cannot be said to be justified and, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of arrears of 38 months from the date of grant of pay-scales to them. As the claim of fixation of pay and revision and subsequent revision thereof have been granted to the petitioners based on the judgment of this Court which has been subsequently clarified by this Court by modifying the initial order and granted them the arrears, consequential benefits should also flow to the petitioners as they have been granted the said benefit. Accordingly, the C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -8- stand taken by the respondents denying the benefit of arrears to the petitioners cannot sustain and is hereby rejected.
Counsel for the respondents have taken a plea that the petitioners have approached this Court after a long delay and, therefore, are not entitled to the arrears as claimed by them also cannot be accepted as they have already been denied the benefit of arrears of pay from the date of their actual date of entitlement because of their delayed claim made by them and claim of their entitlement. Accordingly, this objection also, as raised by the counsel for the respondents, is not accepted and stands rejected.
In the light of the above, present writ petitions are allowed with directions to the respondents to grant the petitioners arrears of pay for 38 months preceding the date of the order by which they were granted the benefit of fixation of pay and subsequent revision thereof.
As far as petitioner No.3-Roshan Lal son of Attar Singh in CWP No.17808 of 2011 is concerned, it has been stated in the reply that the petitioner does not belong to the division of answering respondent No.3 and, therefore, his service particulars are not known to the answering respondent. In this regard, it is clarified that in case the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of fixation of pay on notional basis as per the order passed by the Court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra), he shall also be entitled to the same benefit as other petitioners as mentioned above.
Photocopy of this order be placed on record on all the connected cases.
February 13, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
C.W.P.No.17808 of 2011 -9-
poonam JUDGE