Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chaman Lal And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 February, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No.3285 of 2010.doc -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.3285 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.02.2010
****
Chaman Lal and others . . . . Petitioners
VS.
State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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?
****
Present: Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab
*****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). Notice of motion to AG Punjab. Mr. B.S. Chahal, learned DAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. (2). The petitioners are serving/retired Teacher/Masters of the Education Department, Government of Punjab. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to permit them to re- exercise their option within some reasonable period for the grant of revised pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in terms of the notification/Circular dated 24.12.1992 (Annexure P1).
CWP No.3285 of 2010.doc -2-(3). Suffice it to observe that vide the above-stated Circular of the Finance Department on 24th December, 1992 (Annexure P1), the employees were permitted to re-exercise their option within a period of 7 days say by 31st December, 1992 only. (4). As several teacher/employees could not re-
exercise their options within the short period given to them, they approached this Court in a batch of writ petitions including CWP No.18537 of 1995 (Jawahar Lal Verma vs. State of Punjab and others) which were decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 21.03.1996, operative part of which reads as follows:-
"Consequently, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for exercise of revised option in terms of the direction given on 211.11.1995 in Civil Writ Petition No.18380 of 1994. We further direct the Government to issue written instructions to all the competent authorities within a period of fifteen days directing them to call upon all similarly situated persons to exercise their revised option for fixation of their pay. All the competent authorities should be directed to decide the case of revised option within a specified time frame of two to three months."
(5). Some more employees approached this Court in CWP No.7643 of 1997 (Narinder Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others) which CWP No.3285 of 2010.doc -3- was also allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.07.1998 in the following terms:-
"Consequently, this petition is allowed in the same terms and the petitioners are allowed to give fresh options of the date within a period of one month w.e.f. which they want revision of their pay and if they do give the fresh options, then their pay scales be accordingly revised but the arrears so calculated would be confined to 3 years and two months prior to the filing of the present writ petitions, which was filed on 29.05.1997. If fresh options are given by the petitioners as aforesaid, the respondents will consider the case of the revision of their pay accordingly within a period of six months of the receipt of the options.
(6). The matter was also taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the State's Civil Appeal No.5486 of 2000 has been finally dismissed on 03.04.2007.
(7). The petitioners now seek a direction to the respondents to allow them also to re-exercise their options in terms of the above-mentioned Finance Department Circular dated 24.12.1992 (Annexure P1). It is urged that the respondents were obligated to issue General Instructions enabling all the employees to re-exercise their options instead of forcing each of them to approach this Court.CWP No.3285 of 2010.doc -4-
(8). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-
affidavit/reply opposing the petitioners' prayer. (9). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. It is true that the pay scales were revised by the State of Punjab w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and it was in order to redress the hardship caused to some of the employees that the Circular dated 24.12.1992 (Annexure P1) was issued to enable them to re- exercise their options, namely, "from the date they would like to opt for the new pay-scales". Various orders relied upon by the petitioners, were passed by this Court at the time when no further revision in pay-scales had taken place. The petitioners on the other hand have approached belatedly when the pay-scales have been further revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and again from 01.01.2006. (10). It is apparent that petitioners' move is very calculative as they want to re-exercise their options retrospectively in respect of the pay-scales which came in force w.e.f. 01.01.1986 only when they are sure of monetary advantages at the stages of later revisions in pay scales. True that this Court in Jawahar Lal Verma and Narinder CWP No.3285 of 2010.doc -5- Kumar's cases (supra) did confer a right upon the petitioners to re-exercise their options in terms of the Finance Department Circular dated 24.12.1992, the fact that they have come forward at a belated stage and without any plausible explanation, has to be kept in view by this Court while exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction. (11). Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed in part to the extent that while the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to re-exercise their options in terms of the Finance Department's Circular dated 24.12.1992 (Annexure P1) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, no resultant arrears of pay shall be paid to them and they shall be entitled to only the notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1986, 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006, as the case may be. The petitioners, however, shall be paid emoluments/pension as per the re-fixed pay w.e.f. 01.03.2010 onwards.
(12). Ordered accordingly.
(13). Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
25.02.2010
vishal shonkar
CWP No.3285 of 2010.doc -6-