Judgment:
CWP No.12209 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH116 CWP No.12209 of 2014 Date of Decision : June 30, 2014 Bhola Ram and others ...PETITIONERS versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
(ORAL) Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra-respondent No.3 denying the petitioners the benefit of technical pay scale of ` 1200-2040 w.e.f.01.05.1990, which was initially granted to the petitioners unconditionally and was subsequently withdrawn, which order was challenged by the petitioners by filing CWP No.7350 of 1992 before this Court, which was disposed of on 03.02.2014 by this Court by observing as follows:- Prerna datta 2014.07.04 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.12209 of 2014 2 “ In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and also keeping in view the fact that the writ petition is pending since the year 1992 with the favourable order of stay in favour of the petitioneRs.the writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to re-consider the claim of the petitioneRs.as made in the present writ petition and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four months.
Even if an order against the interest of the petitioners is finally passed by the respondents, no recovery shall be effected from the petitioners in pursuance to the order dated 14.05.1992(Annexure P-5).”
.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioners placing reliance upon the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of Pay Scale between Technical and Non-Technical Posts) Ordinance, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Ordinance 2013) dated 10.12.2013 and thereafter, the notification dated 11.03.2014, vide which the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of Pay Scale between Technical and Non-Technical Posts) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 2014 Act) has come into effect, would not bar the claim of the petitioners as made by them in the writ petition preferred by them in the year 1992, referred to above.
Referring to Section 6 of the 2014 Act, counsel for the petitioners Prerna datta contends that proviso of the said Section would protect the claim of 2014.07.04 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.12209 of 2014 3 the petitioneRs.according to which all those persons, who had already been granted unconditionally the upgraded pre-revised pay scale and drawing the same before the date of notification of the Ordinance, 2013 i.e.10.12.2013, shall continue to draw these pay scales as a measure personal to them.
Petitioners were granted the revised technical pay scale vide order dated 19.06.1991 (Annexure P-1 Colly.).which is an unconditional grant of the benefit to the petitioners and, therefore, would be covered by the initial clause of the proviso.
PetitioneRs.on the date of issuance of the Ordinance i.e.10.12.2013, were continuing to draw the same and, therefore, as a personal measure, the pay scale should have been continued to the petitioneRs.He contends that even if there was an interim order passed in favour of the petitioners granting them the stay of reduction of the pay scale dated 03.06.1992, the same would not make any difference as the language of the Section does not envisage such a situation and only requires drawing of the same revised pay scale before the date of notification of the Ordinance.
Reliance has also been placed by the counsel for the petitioners upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.9510 of 1994 titled as Shamsher Singh and others versus State of Haryana and otheRs.decided on 22.12.2008 (Annexure P-6).wherein the order dated 20.08.1992, on the basis of which the pay of the petitioners was also reduced, stands quashed and, therefore, the order dated 20.08.1992 could not have been, in any case, made applicable to the claim of the petitioners once the same has been Prerna datta quashed and stay granted in favour of the petitioners in the writ 2014.07.04 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.12209 of 2014 4 petition preferred by them would also not, in any case, make any difference in the light of the quashing of the said letter.
Prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure P-5).I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were granted the technical pay scale vide order dated 22.06.1991 (Annexure P-1 Colly.) by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra.
It is true that there is no condition attached with the grant of revised pay scales to the petitioneRs.However, in the light of the Haryana Government Instructions/Order dated 14.05.1992 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana (Annexure P-2).the pay scales of the petitioners were reduced.
As a consequence thereof, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra, vide letter dated 27.05.1992 (Annexure P-3).proceeded to withdraw the earlier technical pay scales granted to them, which order was challenged by the petitioners by filing CWP No.7350 of 1992 titled as Satpal and others versus State of Haryana and otheRs.in which the order dated 03.06.1992 was passed by this Court staying the reduction of the pay of the petitioneRs.Section 4 of the 2014 Act reads as follows:- “ The entry at serial number 3 under common category posts in the annexure to instructions bearing No.1/54/2PR (FD)-82, dated 30.03.1982, at serial number 40 Prerna datta in annexure A to instructions bearing No.6/23/3PR (FD).2014.07.04 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.12209 of 2014 5 88 dated 23-08-1990, No.6/23/3PR (FD)-88 dated 26.07.1991 and No.6/83/2009-3PR (FD).dated 09.08.2010 are hereby withdrawn and shall be deemed to have been withdrawn with effect from the date of their coming into force: Provided that all those persons who had already been granted unconditionally the up-graded pre-revised pay scale and drawing the same before date of notification of the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of Pay Scale between Technical and Non-technical Posts) Ordinance, 2013 (Haryana Ordinance No.6 of 2013) viz.
the 10th December, 2013, shall continue to draw these pay scales, as a measure personal to them.”
.
A perusal of the same would indicate that the instructions, on the basis of which the petitioners were claiming benefit of the technical pay scales, stands withdrawn.
Reliance has been placed upon by the counsel for the petitioners on the proviso of the said Section.
A perusal of the same would show that the persons, who have already been granted the up-graded pre-revised pay scales unconditionally and were also drawing the same before the date of notification of the Ordinance, 2013 i.e.10.12.2013, would continue to draw these pay scales as a measure personal to them.
The word 'unconditionally' used in the proviso not only qualifies the initial grant of the up-graded pre-revised pay scale but also qualifies the Prerna datta continuance of drawing of the same till the date of notification of the 2014.07.04 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.12209 of 2014 6 Ordinance.
In the present case, although the petitioners were initially granted the pay scales unconditionally but the same were withdrawn subsequently, which forced the petitioners to file CWP No.7350 of 1992 in this Court, where because of an interim protection granted by this Court, the petitioners continued to draw the pay scale.
They, therefore, cannot be said to be drawing the pay scale on 10.12.2013 unconditionally rather because of the protection granted by this Court, the petitioners were drawing the said revised pay scale.
Section 4, therefore, would not come to the rescue and protection of the petitioneRs.as has been sought to be asserted by the counsel for the petitioneRs.A contention has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the Instructions dated 20.08.1992, on the basis of which the petitioneRs.pay scales were withdrawn/reduced, stand already quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 22.12.2008 in Shamsher Singh's case (supra) and, therefore, the same cannot be made applicable and the basis for withdrawing the claim of the petitioneRs.which order was impugned in the writ petition preferred by the petitioners earlier.
This contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that while disposing of the writ petition i.e.CWP N.
7350 of 1992 by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2014, the Court was not made aware of this fact and the said judgment has attained finality, which has been accepted by the Government and in accordance with the same, no Prerna datta recovery is being effected from the petitioners although they have not 2014.07.04 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.12209 of 2014 7 been granted the technical pay scale from 01.05.1990, the initial date of grant of benefit to them.
In the light of the provisions, as contained in Section 4 of the 2014 Act, since the basic instructions, on the basis of which the benefit as was conferred upon the petitioneRs.stand withdrawn and the claim of the petitioners is not covered by the proviso to Section 4, the decision of the respondents dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) in compliance with the order dated 03.02.2014 passed by this Court in CWP No.7350 of 1992 preferred by the petitioners cannot be said to be not in accordance with law.
It may be added here that vires of the 2014 Act are not challenged in the present writ petition and, therefore, the contents of the provisions of the said Act had to be applied as it is.
Dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) June 30, 2014 JUDGE pj Prerna datta 2014.07.04 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh