Punjab-Haryana High Court
Indraj Singh Saini & Ors vs Hry St Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corp. ... on 3 September, 2014
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
KUMAR MANOJ
CWP No. 1858 of 1997 #1# 2014.09.06 10:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 1858 of 1997
Date of Decision:-03.09.2014
Indraj Singh Saini and Ors.
......Petitioners.
Versus
Haryana State Minor Irr. Corp. and Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- None for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioners were appointed as Technical Assistants (Geology), in the Ground Water Cell of the respondent-Haryana State Minor Irrigation (Tube-well) Corporation. They are claiming the pay scale of Rs.200-3200/- w.e.f 1.6.1992 as granted to the Technical Assistants (Geology) working in the Ground Water Cell, Department of Agriculture, Haryana.
It is claimed that they possess identical qualifications and perform similar functions as the Technical Assistants working in the Agricultural Department of the State and were also placed in the identical scales prior to 1.6.1992.
Respondent-HSMITC, a registered Company, in their reply, have stated that itself Board of Directors have taken a conscious decision to grant the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660/- keeping in view the General Pay Revision w.e.f 1.1.1986, however, it was not bound to accept the further revision of the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200/- granted to the Technical Assistants in the Agricultural Department in the light of a decision of this Court in CWP No.15648 of 1995. It is stated that the Agricultural Department and Horticulture Department are separate entities than the respondent-Corporation, which is an autonomous body and not bound to accept the modified pay scale.
Learned counsel for the respondent-HSMITC contends that CWP No. 1858 of 1997 #2# apart from the petitioner having failed to make out any case on merits, states at Bar that the respondent-Corporation stands wound up/closed w.e.f 30.7.2002 and all its employees (including the petitioners) stand retrenched after observing all legal formalities. This Court has already dismissed the writ petitions challenging the closure and the subsequent retrenchment of its employees. He further states that the State Government has formulated a Policy vide Notification dated 21.6.2006 for adjustment/re-employment of the retrenched employees of various Corporations/Boards/Undertakings including the HSMITC. Petitioners would, thus, be adjusted if not already in various Government Department/undertakings in terms of the said Policy or to be extended the benefit of one time settlement. He therefore states that the present writ petition has become infructuous.
None has come present on behalf of the petitioner to rebut the aforesaid factual position.
In view of the statement made by counsel for the respondent- Corporation at Bar, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 03, 2014 manoj