Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Sh. H.N.Sharma on 17 February, 2026
Author: Amarinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Amarinder Singh Grewal
RSA-637-1998
1998 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
207 RSA No.637 of 1998 (O&M)
Reserved on:05.02.2026
Pronounced on:17.02.2026
Uploaded on:17.02.2026
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Appellants
Versus
H.N.SHARMA ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, DAG, Haryana,
for the appellants.
appellant
Respondent has been proceeded against
ex--parte,
parte, vide order dated 11.02.2002.
***
****
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants-
appellant defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed missed and the judgment and decree dated 12.02.1997 passed by the learned Trial Court, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff-
plaintiff respondent,, was upheld.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being described in the mannerr in which they were before the learned Trial Court.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction asserting that he was appointed as a Sub Divisional Officer in the Irrigation Department on 22.12.1978 and and was subsequently regularised in service on 03.12.1980. He continued to serve uninterruptedly and, on completion of the requisite length of service, was granted the benefit of selection grade and 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 ::: RSA-637-1998 1998 (O&M) -2- was drawing a basic pay of ₹4225/- along with admissible aallowances llowances while posted post at Charkhi Dadri.
Dadri. The plaintiff was transferred to Sidhmukh Mechanical Sub Division No. III, Hisar on 31.10.1994, where he continued to receive salary in the same scale. However, defendant No.3, namely the Executive Engineer, Sidhmukh Construction uction Division No. 9, Hisar, while releasing the salary for the month of March 1995, which was paid in April 1995, reduced his basic pay to ₹3400/-
₹3400/ instead of ₹4225/-
₹4225/ along with allowances. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant No.3 was not competent competent to reduce his salary in the absence of any order from the Government or the Engineer-in-Chief Engineer Chief and without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved against the withdrawal of the selection grade and reduction of his pay, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from reducing his pay and from interfering with the benefits already granted to him. Hence, the present suit.
4. Upon notice, the defendants appeared appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of selection grade in view of the Government of Haryana instructions instructio dated 16.05.1990 bearing No.6/38/3PR(FD)87, No.6/38/3PR(FD)87, w wherein herein it was stipulated that the selection grade was admissible only to regular engineers on completion of 12 years of regular and satisfactory service and that the grant of such benefit was restricted to 20% of the cadre posts. It was further averred tha thatt the plaintiff, while posted at Charkhi Dadri, was aware of the aforesaid instructions but concealed the same and got his pay fixed in a higher scale by misleading the Executive Engineer, Mohindergarh ergarh Division, Charkhi Dadri. In fact fact, the authority to fix the pay was vested only with the Engineer-in-Chief. It was pleaded that the fixation of pay in 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 ::: RSA-637-1998 1998 (O&M) -3- favour of the plaintiff was thus without jurisdiction and, on scrutiny of his service record, the inadvertent error came to light, where whereafter the pay was corrected in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. The suit was accordingly contested on various preliminary objections, viz., suppression of material facts and that the suit was false, frivolous, not maintainable in law, and that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the same.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court Cou framed as many as ten issues including relief.
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW PW-1 1 and tendered documentary evidence evidence comprising Ex.P Ex.P-1 1 (copy of revision of pay scale dated 16.05.1990), 16.05.1990 Ex.P-22 (copy of letter dated 21.05.1990), Ex.P Ex.P-3 3 and Ex.P-4 Ex.P (copies of orders of the High Court dated 30.05.1990), Ex.P Ex.P-5 5 (copy of letter dated 20.07.1994) and Ex.P-6 Ex.P (copy of order dated ted 17.02.1984). On the other hand, the defendants examined Sh. S.P. Gulati, Executive Engineer, as DW DW-1 1 and produced documents Ex.D-1 Ex.D 1 (copy of letter dated 21.05.1990 regarding revision of pay scales), Ex.D-2 2 (letter dated 13.10.1994 issued by the Financi Financial al Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana to the Engineer Engineer-in-Chief), Ex.D-3 3 (letter dated 18.01.1993) and Ex.D-4 Ex.D 4 (copy of order dated 09.08.1994).
7. Upon appreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence evidence,, the learned Trial Court held that as as per letter Ex.P Ex.P-1, 1, the pay scale applicable to the plaintiff was ₹4100-5300.
₹4100 5300. The Court further noticed that vide Government of Haryana letter dated 16.05.1990 (Ex.P-1), (Ex.P ), the grant of selection grade in the scale of ₹4100-5300 5300 was made subject to the condi condition tion that it would be admissible to only 20% of the cadre posts after completion of 12 years of regular and satisfactory service; however, the said instructions were challenged by a number of officers of 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 ::: RSA-637-1998 1998 (O&M) -4- the department in CWP No. 7947 of 1990 before this H Hon'ble on'ble Court and the Division Bench had stayed the operation of the said notification, and the writ petition was stated to be pending. The learned Trial Court, therefore, held that the said instructions could not be enforced against the plaintiff at the re relevant levant time.
The learned triaal Court also placed reliance upon the judgment in Rakesh Kumar 586, wherein it was held that where an Singla v. State of Haryana, 1995 (4) SLR 586 employee is subsequently regularised and has rendered continuous service, the period of ad-hoc hoc service cannot be ignored and is liable to be counted. On this basis, the learned Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had completed the requisite length of service and was entitled to the selection grade in the scale of ₹4100-5300 5300 w.e.f. 31.12.1990 31.12.1990 and that the subsequent reduction of his pay was illegal. Consequently, the suit was decreed with costs of ₹3000/-,, while granting liberty to the defendants to refix the pay and recover any excess amount, if permissible, in the event of the relevant notificatio notification becoming operative i.e. Ex. P-1.
8. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997,, upon reappraisal of the entire material on record, affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court on merits and modified only the quantum of costs by reducing the same from ₹3000/ ₹3000/- to ₹500/-.Hence, Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant appellants-defendants contended that the judgments of both the learned Courts below were contrary to law and the evidence on record. It was argued that the plaintiff-respondent plaintiff respondent was initially appointed on an ad hoc basis on 22.12.1978 and was regularised on 03.12.1980. It was submitted 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 ::: RSA-637-1998 1998 (O&M) -5- that, as per the applicable instructions, the selection grade in the pay scale of ₹4100-5300 5300 was admissible only to those employees who had completed 12 years of regular service. However, since the plaintiff plaintiff-respondent respondent had not completed 12 years ears of regular service, the basic selection grade in the pay scale of ₹4100-5300 5300/-
had been wrongly granted to him, and his pay was thereafter rightly reduced to ₹3400/- upon a correct interpretation of notification notification, Ex. P-2 dated 21.05.1990.
10. Itt was further further contended that the respondent had based his claim upon the decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Singla v. State of Haryana Haryana,, 1995 (4) SLR 586, wherein ad hoc service had been counted for certain purposes. However, the appellants submitted that the legality of the said Full Bench judgment was under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the operation of the said judgment had been stayed stay in the Special Leave Petition filed against it by the state. It was thus argued that the reliance placed upon the said judgment was wholly misplaced, as the issue has since been finally adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ha Haryana ryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association and connected matters (Civil Appeal No. 13423 of 1996 and 19.09.2000) wherein it was clarified that ad hoc connected appeals, decided on 19.09.2000), service cannot be counted in the manner claimed by the respondent respondent-plaintiff.
plaintiff.
Consequently, the very foundation of the findings recorded by the learned Courts below no longer survived. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to the affidavit of appellant No. 3, Executive Engineer, dated 14.11.2025, wherein it was specifically ally stated that only those officials whose names were included within 20% of the cadre posts were eligible for the selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 4100- 4100 5300/-,, and since the name of the respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff did not fall within the said 20% cadre posts, osts, he was not entitled to the said selection grade.
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 :::
RSA-637-1998
1998 (O&M) -6-
11. It is pertinent to note that despite service of notice upon the respondent, there is no representation on his behalf and he was accordingly proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 11.02.2002 11.02.2002.The present appeal is of the year 1998 and, therefore, this court proceeds to dispose of the same on the basis of the material available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.
12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it may be noticed that tha in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika, Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157; Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh,, (2019) 17 SCC 71; and Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh (2023) 875, substantial questions of law are not requ SCC Online SC 875, required ired to be framed in second appeals before this Court, whose jurisdiction is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have carefully perused the record of the case, including the affidavit filed on behalf of appellant No.3-Executive Executive Engineer and the documents placed on record. The primary question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of selection grade of Rs. 4100-5300 /--by counting the period of ad d hoc service and whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below suffer from om any illegality or perversity?.
perversity?
14. A perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff was appointed on ad hoc basis on 22.12.1978 and was regularised on 03.12.1980, and ultimately ltimately retired on 31.01.1998.. The record further shows that the Government of Haryana issued instructions dated 02.06.1989 (Letter No.6/38/3PR(FD) 6/38/3PR(FD)-87) introducing revised scales and selection grade, whereby senior scale was admissible on completion of 5 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 ::: RSA-637-1998 1998 (O&M) -7- years and selection grade in the scale of Rs.4100 Rs.4100-5300/- was admissible on completion of 12 years of regular service on the posts of AE/AEE/SDE, with effect from 01.05.1989.
01.05.1989 Thereafter, upon reconsideration, the Government issued further instructions dated ted 16.05.1990,, modifying the earlier policy and clarifying that the selection grade in the revised scale would be restricted to20% of the cadre posts, posts and would be admissible only after completion of 12 years of regular and satisfactory service.
service The said policy became the subject matter of challenge before this Court in several writ petitions, wherein relief was granted by interpreting that the benefit of selection grade was not restricted to certain percentage of cadre posts. However, the aforesaid view was challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 1463 of 2000 2000, decided on 20.11.2000, 20.11.2000 titled as State of Haryana versus Ishwar Singh Singh.. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the issue, held that merely because the percenta percentage ge restriction was not expressly noticed in the earlier instructions dated 02.06.1989,, the High Court could not have directed grant of selection grade to every member of the cadre, and accordingly clarified the correct legal position governing the grant of such benefit. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
under:-
"Selection Selection Grade is restricted to certain percentage of the posts such as 20% in the present case. So, So merely because the percentage was not mentioned in the earlier order dated 2.6.89, tthe he High Court could not have awarded Selection Grade to every member in the cadre. The High Court should have seen that the mistake in the order dated 02.06.1989 was rectified. We therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and direct direct that the Selection Grade scale of Rs.4100- Rs.4100 5300/ will be restricted to 20% of the posts in the cadre as provided in 5300/-
the clarification dated 16.05.1990. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs"
7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 ::: RSA-637-1998 1998 (O&M) -8-
15. The aforesaid view was subsequently followed by this Court in CWP No. 8172 of 1990 titled as H.R. Dhanjal and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 17.08.2001,, wherein directions were issued in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued a fresh notification dated 05.11.2001 (Notification No. 10/29/90 10/29/90-3PR(FD) for grant of selection grade to eligible doctors and engineers in accordance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the directions issued by this Co Court.
16. The department thereafter prepared a list of officers who fell within the 20% cadre strength and were eligible for grant of selection grade, and accordingly such officers were granted the scale of Rs.4100-5300/- from the admissible dates vide letter dated 11.10.2002.. The name of the plaintiff plaintiff-respondent respondent did not figure in the said list, as only those officers were eligible who were working on the posts of AE/AEE/SDE as on 01.05.1989 and had completed 12 years of regular satisfactory service, service, and fell within the 20% cadre limit.
17. In view of the aforesaid,, it is evident that grant of selection grade was not automatic and was subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in the Government instructions, including the restriction to 20% of the cadre posts and completion of 12 years of regular satisfactory service in terms of the instructions effective from 01.05.1989 or onwards.
18. The record shows shows that pursuant to the clarification of law and issuance of fresh notification, the department prepared a list of eligible officers who fulfilled the prescribed conditions and fell within the permissible cadre strength. The name of the plaintiff-
-respondent did not figure in the said list, as he did not fulfil the eligibility conditions in terms of cadre position and policy requirements requirements. The 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 ::: RSA-637-1998 1998 (O&M) -9- record shows that the respondent was regularised on 03.12.1980.. The benefit of selection grade under the Government instructions instructions became admissible with effect from 01.05.1989, 01.05.1989 subject to completion of 12 years of regular satisfactory service.
service On the said date, the plaintiff had rendered only about 8 years and 5 months of regular service,, and was thus short of the prescrib prescribed ed qualifying service. Even by the time, clarificatory instructions dated 16.05.1990 were issued, the respondent-
respondent plaintiff had completed only about 9 years and 5 months of regular service, which was still less than the required period of 12 years. Thus, th the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff did not fulfil the basic eligibility condition of 12 years of regular satisfactory services as AE/AEE/SDE for grant of selection grade of Rs.4100-5300/-.
19. It further appears that the learned Courts below, while granting relief to the plaintiff-
-respondent, respondent, did not properly examine the material aspect relating to the date of regularisation and the actual length of qualifying regular service service.. The entitlement of selection grade was required to be determined on the basis of regular service,, yet the learned Courts below failed to calculate the period of regular service from the date of regularisation and did not examine whether the plaintiff-
plaintiff respondent had completed the prescribed 12 years of regular service on the relevant dates.. Furthermore, the learned Courts below granted relief to the respondent primarily by relying upon the judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar (supra) However, the said judgment was subsequently exami Singla's case (supra). examined ned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association and connected matters (Civil Appeal No. 13423 of 1996 19.09.2000), wherein the view taken by the and connected appeals, decided on 19.09.2000) High Court was set aside and the appeals filed by the State were allowed. Consequently, the very basis on which relief was granted to the plaintiff-
plaintiff
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 :::
RSA-637-1998
1998 (O&M) -10-
respondent no longer survives, and the findings recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be sustained.
20. Consequently, in view of the discussion and findings recorded hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed.. The judgments and decrees passed by both the learned d Courts below are hereby set aside aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
21. Pending miscellaneous application application, if any, also stands disposed sposed of accordingly.
(AMARINDER AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL GREWAL) JUDGE February 17,, 2026 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 10 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 00:57:46 :::