Punjab-Haryana High Court
Alok Verma vs Unknown on 30 September, 2013
C.W.P No. 18869 of 2010 (O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 18869 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : September 30, 2013
Alok Verma,
...... Petitioner
v.
Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh
...... Respondent
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Shirish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
The petitioner has claimed the pay scale of ` 2000-3500 as was admissible to Punjab Government employees w.e.f 14.1.1994 (his date of appointment) instead of pay scale of ` 1800-3200 granted to him. The basis of the claim of the petitioner is that by resolution dated 5.8.1993, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Chandigarh Housing Board (for short "the Board") had accepted the conditions of service of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules 1992. As per those rules, the conditions of service of persons appointed to the posts under the Chandigarh Administration would be the same as the conditions of service of persons appointed to the corresponding posts in the Punjab Civil Services w.e.f Kumar Kishan 2013.10.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No. 18869 of 2010 (O&M) ::2::
1.4.1991.
As per the averments made in the petition, the conditions of service of the employees of U.T Administration Chandigarh were equated with those of the State of Punjab. Consequently, the petitioner had sought the pay scale as per the following table :-
Time Period Scale of Programmer in Scale of
Chandigarh Housing Board Programmer in
Punjab
Government
1. 1994 (at the time 1800-3200 2000-3500
of my joining
CHB)
2. 1996 (4th Pay 5800-9200 7220-11660
Commission)
3. 2003(CHB Service Xx xx xx 7220-11660
Rules Notified)
4. 2009(5th Pay 10300-34800 + Grade Pay of 10300-34800 +
Commission) 3800 (Initial Total Pay grade pay of
14590/- has been 5000 (initial
implemented instead of total pay 18450)
applicable scale of :-
10300-34800 + Grade pay of
5000 (initial total pay
18450/-).
Counsel for the respondent has not denied the fact that the Board has notified about the conditions of service of its employees as mentioned above. He has, however, defended the grant of lower pay scale to the petitioner from time to time on the ground that the initial pay scale of ` 1800-3200 granted to him was as per the draft rules and thereafter the revisions which have been granted to the petitioner have been granted as per the said initial fixation of pay. He has further argued that the post of Computer Programmer in the respondent-Board cannot be equated with the post of Computer Programmer in the State of Punjab. He has, however, Kumar Kishan 2013.10.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No. 18869 of 2010 (O&M) ::3::
accepted the fact that in case the petitioner had been placed in the pay scale of ` 2000-3500 from the date of his appointment, he would have got the pay scales as have been mentioned in the above table.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the Board has equated the conditions of service of its employees with those of corresponding employees in the State of Punjab, it cannot now argue that the post of Computer Programmer in the Board is not equivalent to the post of Computer Programmer in the State of Punjab, more-so when it has not been denied that the qualifications and the work are similar.
In my considered opinion, this writ petition has to be allowed. Once the Board had equated the service conditions of its employees with those of the employees of the Punjab Government, it cannot now turn around and say that because it was set up to create low cost housing, a particular employee cannot be equated with the corresponding employee in the State of Punjab. It is not denied in the written statement that qualifications for the post of Computer Programmer in the State of Punjab and the Board are similar. It has not been spelled out how the job profile is so different that the petitioner is not entitled to be equated with a post carrying the same nomenclature and requiring the same qualifications. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that pay of the petitioner shall be re-fixed as per the table given above.
Counsel for the respondent has argued that since the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay, arrears should be restricted to 38 months prior to the date of filing of the original writ petition.Kumar Kishan
2013.10.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P No. 18869 of 2010 (O&M) ::4::
Counsel for the petitioner states that this issue should be viewed against the conduct of the Board and against the fact that the petitioner has been agitating against the same since 1997 and then this Court may modulate the relief.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner originally was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a review application along with which he annexed copy of the notification dated 13.1.1992 and the resolution of the Board dated 5.8.1993. Reply to the said review application was filed by the Board in which for the first time it was specifically admitted that the notification dated 13.1.1992 had been adopted by it, yet its action was sought to be defended. On 11.12.2011, the following order was passed by this Court :-
" In reply to review application, it has been admitted that notification dated 13.01.1992 has been adopted by Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh and keeping in view the nature of job, the pay scale has not yet been adopted to the present post. Nothing has been mentioned in reply to review application qua to which post, the notification has been adopted and qua to which post, it has not been adopted.
Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to justify that the notification has been adopted but keeping in view the difference in nature of job, the pay scale has not been granted.
In view of the above, the Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh is directed to file his affidavit regarding not adopting the said notification qua the present post.
Let the affidavit in this regard be filed within a period of two weeks from today.
Adjourned to 17.01.2013.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Special Secretary attached to this Court."
Thereafter, another affidavit was filed again re-iterating the earlier stand. It was brought the notice of the Court that the claim of the Kumar Kishan 2013.10.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No. 18869 of 2010 (O&M) ::5::
petitioner was again rejected. Ultimately, the review application was allowed in the following terms :-
" From the facts and discussion as made above, it is clear that mistake has crept in the judgment because of the reasons that the petitioner was not having copy of the notification which was adopted by Chandigarh Housing Board and the same could not be placed on record along with main writ petition. After decision of the main writ petition, the petitioner came to know about the said notification and adoption thereof and thereafter review application was filed. Even the notification dated 13.1.1992 and its adoption by Chandigarh Housing Board was not brought to the notice of the Court by the respondent-Board and intentionally it was concealed which resulted into dismissal of the main writ petition. Had this fact been in notice of the Court at the time of decision, the different view would have been there. Accordingly, the review application is allowed and order dated 9.9.2011 is recalled."
Keeping in mind the above facts, the inescapable conclusion is that the respondent-Board was attempting to over-reach this Court. It is one thing for a private citizen not to come to a Court with clean hands but when a State Organization does the same, the fault is exponentially compounded. In the circumstances, even while strongly deprecating the action of the respondent-Board, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be also granted interest @ 8% pa from the date/s the amount/s fell due along with arrears of pay which are restricted to 38 months prior to filing of CWP No.8350 of 2010. The petitioner would also be entitled to costs of ` 50,000/-. Let necessary exercise of computation of his due salary as well as arrears, the interest and the costs be carried out and thereafter payments be paid to the petitioner within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, any due amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be entitled to further interest thereon Kumar Kishan 2013.10.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No. 18869 of 2010 (O&M) ::6::
@ 2% p.a from today till the date of actual payment.
( AJAY TEWARI )
September 30, 2013. JUDGE
`kk'
Kumar Kishan
2013.10.09 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P No. 18869 of 2010 (O&M) ::7::
Kumar Kishan
2013.10.09 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh