- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 3.11.2012
CWP No. 18438 of 2010
Subhash Chander and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 13408 of 2010
Chandi Ram and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 20307 of 2010
Ashok Vashisth and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 824 of 2011
Naresh Kumar and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondent(s)CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases -2-
CWP No. 3856 of 2011
Satbir Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 4343 of 2011
Gayatri and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 4347 of 2011
Manju Khurana and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 6750 of 2011
Krishan Kumar and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 7034 of 2011
Mahesh Chander and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases -3-
CWP No. 7663 of 2011
Ramesh Kumar and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 8180 of 2011
Subhash Chander and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 10072 of 2011
Rajbir Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 11471 of 2011
Somvir Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 11689 of 2011
Sukh Pal Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases -4-
CWP No. 11770 of 2011
Chander Parkash and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 12431 of 2011
Pawan Kumar and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 13066 of 2011
Satvir Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 14669 of 2011
Sanjay Kumar and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 15882 of 2011
Yudhbir Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases -5-
CWP No. 17033 of 2011
Rajesh Kumar Yadav and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 18184 of 2011
Jai Kanwar and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 18352 of 2011
Raj Kumar and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 21003 of 2011
Sarjeet Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 616 of 2012
Kulvender Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases -6-
CWP No. 3101 of 2012
Monika and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 3898 of 2012
Umed Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 6992 of 2012
Sanjay and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 7978 of 2012
Jagdish Chander Verma and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 10363 of 2012
Vijender Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases -7-
CWP No. 15170 of 2012
Rajender Singh ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 16062 of 2012
Ranvir Singh and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 17949 of 2012
Seema and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CWP No. 21256 of 2012
Kishan Lal and others ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. S.K. Tamak, Advocate, (in CWP No. 18438 of 2010)
Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate,
(in CWPs No. 20307 of 2010 and 824, 11770, 14669, 15882,
17033, 18184 of 2011 and 616, 3898, 7978, 16062 of 2012)CWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases -8-
Mr. Vivek Arora, Advocate,
(in CWPs No. 3856, 6750, 7034, 7663, 8180, 10072, 11471,
11689, 12431, 13066 of 2011)
Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate, (in CWP No. 18352 of 2011)
Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, (in CWP No. 21003 of 2011)
Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, (in CWP No. 15170 of 2012)
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate,
(in CWPs No. 3101, 6992 17949 of 2012)
Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate,
(in CWPs No. 4343, 4347 of 2011 and 10363, 21256 of 2012)
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
By this order, I propose to decide Civil Writ Petitions No. 18438,
20307, 13408 of 2010 and 824, 3856, 4343, 4347, 6750, 7034, 7663, 8180,
10072, 11471, 11689, 11770, 12431, 13066, 14669, 15882, 17033, 18184
18352, 21003 of 2011 and 616, 3101, 3898, 6992, 7978, 10363, 15170,
16062, 17949, 21256 of 2012, as common questions of facts and law are
involved in these cases which have been taken up together as per the request
and on the consent of the counsel for the parties. For brevity, the facts are
taken from CWP No. 18438 of 2010.
Petitioners in these cases have approached this Court, impugning
the order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-P-4), issued by the Government of
Haryana, Department of Finance, interpreting Note 2 below Rule 7 of the
Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (in short 'HCS(RP) Rules,
2008') and Note 2 below Rule 18 of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured
Career Progression) Rules, 2008 (in short 'HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008'), whereby
under Clause III under the heading 'Interpretation', it has been stated that the
proviso attached with the rules ibid would not be applicable in cases where the
pre-revised pay scale of the post has been upgraded as indicated in Part-B of
the 1
st Schedule of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and in column 4 of Schedule-ICWP No. 18438 of 2010 and connected cases -9-
Part-I of the HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008, as the case may be, on the ground that
this interpretation is alien to the statutory Rules, framed under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India and through executive/administration instructions,
the statutory Rules cannot be amended, altered or modified and such action of
the respondents is violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Haryana Versus Shamsher Jang Bahadur and others, 1972
SLR 441 and further that the recovery cannot be effected from the petitioners
as pay fixation had been done by the respondents on their own due to misinterpretation of the Rules. There are no allegations of mis-representation or
fraud played by the petitioners and thus, the claim of the petitioners for no
recovery is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram
and others Versus State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) PLR 511. Reliance
has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP
No. 18601 of 2006 titled as Om Parkash and others Versus State of Haryana
and others, decided on 10.4.2008, wherein a similar situation had arisen under
the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 and Haryana Civil
Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998, where again admissible
bunching in the revised grades were initially granted but on a clarification
issued by the Government of Haryana, the same was withdrawn which was
challenged and the said challenge was upheld by this Court, holding the
petitioners entitled to the grant of increment and the explanation issued by the
Government of Haryana, to be violative of the statutory Rules and thus, not
sustainable.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein it has been stated
that the benefit of bunching was not applicable in those cases where the pay
scale of an employee was revised by the Government in pre-revised scales
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
thanks for your valuable comment