Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs Haryana State Industrial And ... on 23 August, 2010
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.14984 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 23.8.2010
Mukesh Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation
Limited ...Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: Mr.RK Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Nikhil Sharma, Advocate for petitioner
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
Mr.Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the prayer made and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage.
The petitioner is B.Tech. (Civil) and has also qualified Master of Engineering (Structures). He was appointed as Manager (IA)/Sub Divisional Engineer on 3.11.1995. He was promoted to the post of Senior Manager (IA)/Executive Engineer on 23.11.2007. The Government of CWP No.14984 of 2010 2 Haryana introduced Haryana Civil Services Assured Career Progression (ACP) Rules, 1998 thereby granting 1st ACP Scheme to the Sub Divisional Engineers i.e. scale of Rs.10,000-13900 after rendering 5 years of service and 2nd ACP i.e. Rs.12,000-16500/- after rendering 11 years of regular satisfactory service limiting to 20% of the Cadre Strength w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation in its 297th Meeting held on 25.9.2007 resolved to adopt the ACP Scheme formulated by the Haryana Government. Consequent upon the adoption of the ACP Scheme, the petitioner was granted the benefit of 1st ACP w.e.f. 1.12.2000 and 2nd ACP w.e.f. 1.12.2006 vide order dated 22/23.11.2007 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner was released the benefit of ACP accordingly. He was issued show-cause notice dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure P-4) for withdrawal of the ACP scheme on the ground that the State Government has not approved the ACP Scales in HSIIDC on the pattern of Engineers & Doctors in the State Government. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the show cause notice vide his communication dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P-5). Despite the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation has passed the impugned order dated 5/16.8.2010 (Annexure P-6) withdrawing the ACP benefit granted to the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. Mr. Malik submits that the controversy is squarely covered by a judgment dated 26.7.1991 passed by this Court in CWP No.5271 of 1986 wherein following observations have been made:-
"...There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once it is admitted that the petitioners were working as Sub Divisional CWP No.14984 of 2010 3 Engineers and Junior Engineers in the Corporation, they were entitled to the revision of the pay scales and mere change of designation would not deprive them of the revision of the pay scales. In fact, as is evident from the facts mentioned above, the Corporation itself had decided on 4th October, 1983 to grant the petitioners the revised pay scales, as was given to the Sub Divisional Engineers/Junior Engineers of the State of Haryana. There is no impediment for the Corporation in implementing this decision in view of Article 95 as the Corporation itself decided that it is not necessary to await the decision of the State Govt.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Corporation is directed to decide finally the matter regarding the implementation of its resolution dated 4th October, 1983 regarding the grant of revision of pay scales to the Managers/Asstt. Managers without waiting for the decision of the State Govt. as the same is not required, in view of Article 95 of the Articles of Association. This may be done within two months from the receipt of the order and if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioners and similarly situated persons, the arrears of the revised pay scales be released within two months CWP No.14984 of 2010 4 thereafter. There will be not order as to costs."
This petition is further covered by another judgment dated 18.5.1993 passed by this Court in CWP No.14200 of 1992.
In view of the above position, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(1)Order dated 5/16.8.2010 impugned is hereby set aside; (2)Respondent-Corporation is directed to re-consider the entire matter in the light of the judgments referred to above within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.8.2010 MFK