Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Chand Deswal vs The State Of Haryana Through The ... on 4 May, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No.4694 of 2000(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.4694 of 2000 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.05.2012
Amar Chand Deswal, Junior Engineer, employee of Haryana State
Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation Limited, Chandigarh and
others.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana through the Financial Commissioner & Secretary
to Government, Department of Finance and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, in CM Nos.11385 of 2009; 7953 of
2010, 2916 of 2011, 4520 of 2012 and 5051 of 2012.
Mr. Jarnail S. Saneta, Advocate and Mr. Balvinder Singh Brar,
Advocate, in CM Nos.4340 of 2009; 460, 4722, 14831 of 2010;
1482, 4340, 9081, 14124 of 2011;1231,3933 of 2012.
Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate, in CM No.6316 of 2012,
for the applicants/petitioners.
Mr. Pardeep Virk, DAG, Haryana,for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, for Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
None for respondent No.4.
*****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The application for impleadment is at the instance of the former employees of the Tubewells Corporation stating that they have respective claims similar to the claims made by the petitioners already on record. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation (HSMITC) on CWP No.4694 of 2000(O&M) [2] 17.01.2000 denying to the employees the revision of pay scales as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission on the ground of financial stringency. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners points out that the issue of non-application of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission for employees of HSMITC on the ground of pecuniary difficulties was repelled by the Supreme Court through a decision in HSMITC and others v. G.S. Uppal and others in Civil Appeal No.9244 of 2003 and others rendered on 16.04.2008. The contention raised by the respondents, therefore, is no longer res integra and the petitioners shall be declared entitled to the relief as sought by them a nd the order impugned is liable to be struck down. The respondents shall apply scales admissible to them in terms of the 5th Pay Commission recommendations and calculate the amounts due to them, respectively, and make the payments within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
2. The payment shall be made in the manner already directed to be done by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.725 of 1993 as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the civil appeal referred to above.
3. The CMs and the writ petition are disposed of on the above terms.
4th May, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) rajan JUDGE