Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpal Singh vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 6 September, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.4825 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.4825 of 2010
Date of Decision:- 06.09.2012
Harpal Singh ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
The State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Manoj Kumar Sangwan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G., Haryana.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondents denying his claim for notional fixation of his pay over and above that of his junior i.e. respondent No.4.
Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, restricts his claim for the grant of notional fixation of his pay for the period he was out of service of the respondent-department due to his selection as Taxation Inspector and thereafter till his reinstatement in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.13612 of 1999 decided on 27.11.2001.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the said writ petition, this Court had relied upon the judgment C.W.P.No.4825 of 2010 -2- passed by this Court in CWP No.851 of 1999 Dharampal vs. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 6.4.1999 wherein monetary benefits for the period when the petitioner had been out of service were denied to him. He contends that the mandate of the Court was only restricted to non-payment of the pay and allowances during the said period but it was never observed that he would not be even entitled to the notional fixation of his pay including increments and other benefits but actual payment of the pay amount would not be made to the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has stated that the intent and purpose of this Court, while passing order dated 6.4.1999 in Dharampal's case (supra) disentitling the petitioner to all monetary benefits, which included non-fixation of the pay or any increments for the period he was out of service and following the said mandate, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondents vide order dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-6). He accordingly, prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
The earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner i.e. CWP No.13612 of 1999 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2001 by passing the following order:-
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record C.W.P.No.4825 of 2010 -3- of this case.
Some facts are not in dispute.
The petitioner was earlier working as a Clerk in the Education Department. He was selected as Taxation Inspector. His selection was successfully challenged but the petitioner was not allowed to revert to his parent department i.e. the Education Department on account of the reasons that in the relieving letter it was categorically mentioned that his lien in the parent department would not be retained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment dated 6th April, 1999 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in which, in similar circumstances, directions were given to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner as Hindi teacher. We allow this writ petition in the same terms as contained in the order dated 6th April, 1999 passed in CWP No.851 of 1999 (Dharampal V/s the State of Haryana & Others). It is hereby clarified that the petitioner shall be appointed to the post of Clerk which he was earlier holding before his selection as Taxation Inspector."
A perusal of the above would show that this Court while granting the benefit to the petitioner had placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court on 16.4.1999 in Dharampal's case (supra), operative C.W.P.No.4825 of 2010 -4- part whereof reads as follows:-
"We allow the writ petition and direct respondent No.2 to pass an order reinstating the petitioner in service as Hindi teacher within two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary benefits for the period between the date of termination of his service as Taxation Inspector and the expiry of two months period counted from the date of submission of certified copy of this order."
The claim of the petitioner, therefore, hinges upon the order passed by this Court in Dharampal's case (supra) which has been reproduced above.
On going through the said order, it cannot be said that the petitioner was to be deprived of even notional fixation of his pay or the continuity of service or other service benefits except for the actual payment for the period he was not serving the Department of Education. The interpretation which has been put to the order passed by the respondents and thereafter denying the claim to the petitioner is not in consonance with the order passed by this Court and, therefore, the said order cannot sustain.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed; impugned order dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed and the petitioner is held entitled to the notional fixation of his pay along with increments from 12.5.1994 to 23.1.2002.
C.W.P.No.4825 of 2010 -5-
Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and consequential benefits be released to the petitioner within a further period of two months.
September 06, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE