Sham Lal Singhal Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1138774
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-29-2014
AppellantSham Lal Singhal
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
c.m.no.4997 of 2014 and cwp no.25021 of 2012 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh107220. c.m.no.4997 of 2014 and cwp no.25021 of 2012 date of decision : april 29, 2014 sham lal singhal ...petitioner versus state of haryana and others ....respondents coram : hon'ble mr.justice augustine george masih present : mr.vinod bhardwaj, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.sunil nehra, sr.dag, haryana, for the state. augustine george masih, j. (oral) c.m.no.4997 of 2014 prayer in this application is for permission to place on record annexures p-14 and p-15. prayer granted. annexures p-14 and p-15 are taken on record. application stands disposed of. cwp no.25021 of 2012 petitioner has approached this court praying for the grant prerna datta 2014.05.01 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh c.m.no.4997 of 2014 and cwp no.25021 of 2012 2 of arrears w.e.f.01.05.1990 in the revised pay scale of ` 1200-2040, which he is entitled to as per the haryana government instructions and especially in the light of the judgment passed by this court in cwp no.18754 of 1991 titled as gurdev singh and others versus state of haryana and others.decided on 18.01.2010. it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier filed cwp no.3358 of 1994 titled as sham lal singhal versus the state of haryana and others.the said writ petition was disposed of by this court vide order dated 19.01.2010 in the light of the judgment passed by this court in gurdev singh's case (supra).petitioner has now been denied the benefit of arrears vide order dated 08.12.2012 (annexure p-10).counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, in the light of the judgment passed by this court in gurdev singh's case (supra).is entitled to the same benefit, as has been granted to the petitioner therein. reference in this regard has been made to the office order dated 11.06.2012 (annexure p-15).according to which, arrears were calculated w.e.f.01.05.1990 in compliance with the order passed by this court in gurdev singh's case (supra).he, accordingly, contends that the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit. on the other hand, counsel for the state contends that this court in gurdev singh's case (supra) although granted the revised pay scale of ` 1200-2040 w.e.f.01.05.1990 but the said order was silent with regard to the release of arrears to the petitioner and, therefore, no arrears are required to be paid to the petitioner in prerna datta 2014.05.01 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh c.m.no.4997 of 2014 and cwp no.25021 of 2012 3 pursuance to the judgment passed by this court. the petitioner has thus, rightly not been granted the arrears.he, however, contends that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of arrears as per the haryana government instructions dated 31.12.2012 (annexure r-3).according to which, the arrears of 38 months prior to 09.08.2010 have been paid to the petitioner. counsel for the state has further referred to the order dated 04.04.2011 passed by the court in c.m.no.2554 of 2011 where the petitioner had sought clarification of the order dated 19.01.2010, which application was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law and on this basis, he contends that the petitioner is not required to be granted any further arrears than what have been released to him. i have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case. the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed cwp no.3358 of 1994 has not been disputed nor has it been disputed that the said writ petition was allowed in same terms as in gurdev singh's case (supra).it is correct that in gurdev singh's judgment, there is no mention of grant of arrears but the order is clear and specific that the revision has to be given effect to w.e.f.01.05.1990. a perusal of the order dated 11.06.2012 (annexure p-15) passed by the executive engineer indicates that the arrears were calculated w.e.f.01.05.1990 for the petitioners in gurdev singh's case (supra) and in the light of the contempt petition filed, they have ultimately been released the prerna datta 2014.05.01 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh c.m.no.4997 of 2014 and cwp no.25021 of 2012 4 said benefit. in the light of the above fact, it appears that the petitioner should be entitled to the same benefit. earlier, a similar matter has come up before this court where because of the letter dated 09.08.2010, benefit of arrears were restricted to 38 months prior thereto. the said matter was considered by this court in its judgment passed in cwp no.17808 of 2011 titled as ishwar singh and another versus state of haryana and others.decided on 13.02.2012, where it was held that the petitioners would be entitled to the arrears of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. in view of the above, the impugned order restricting the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable and qua that, the same is set aside. a direction is issued to the respondents to release the arrears to the petitioner w.e.f.38 months' prior to the date of filing of cwp no.3358 of 1994. the arrears be released to the petitioner within a period of two months' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (augustine george masih ) april 29, 2014 judge pj prerna datta 2014.05.01 10:10 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh
Judgment:

C.M.No.4997 of 2014 and CWP No.25021 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH107220.

C.M.No.4997 of 2014 and CWP No.25021 of 2012 Date of Decision : April 29, 2014 Sham Lal Singhal ...PETITIONER versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr.Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

(ORAL) C.M.No.4997 of 2014 Prayer in this application is for permission to place on record Annexures P-14 and P-15.

Prayer granted.

Annexures P-14 and P-15 are taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

CWP No.25021 of 2012 Petitioner has approached this Court praying for the grant Prerna datta 2014.05.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh C.M.No.4997 of 2014 and CWP No.25021 of 2012 2 of arrears w.e.f.01.05.1990 in the revised pay scale of ` 1200-2040, which he is entitled to as per the Haryana Government Instructions and especially in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.18754 of 1991 titled as Gurdev Singh and others versus State of Haryana and otheRs.decided on 18.01.2010.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.3358 of 1994 titled as Sham Lal Singhal versus The State of Haryana and otheRs.The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2010 in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra).Petitioner has now been denied the benefit of arrears vide order dated 08.12.2012 (Annexure P-10).Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra).is entitled to the same benefit, as has been granted to the petitioner therein.

Reference in this regard has been made to the office order dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure P-15).according to which, arrears were calculated w.e.f.01.05.1990 in compliance with the order passed by this Court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra).He, accordingly, contends that the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit.

On the other hand, counsel for the State contends that this Court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra) although granted the revised pay scale of ` 1200-2040 w.e.f.01.05.1990 but the said order was silent with regard to the release of arrears to the petitioner and, therefore, no arrears are required to be paid to the petitioner in Prerna datta 2014.05.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh C.M.No.4997 of 2014 and CWP No.25021 of 2012 3 pursuance to the judgment passed by this Court.

The petitioner has thus, rightly not been granted the arreaRs.He, however, contends that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of arrears as per the Haryana Government Instructions dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure R-3).according to which, the arrears of 38 months prior to 09.08.2010 have been paid to the petitioner.

Counsel for the State has further referred to the order dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Court in C.M.No.2554 of 2011 where the petitioner had sought clarification of the order dated 19.01.2010, which application was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law and on this basis, he contends that the petitioner is not required to be granted any further arrears than what have been released to him.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case.

The fact that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.3358 of 1994 has not been disputed nor has it been disputed that the said writ petition was allowed in same terms as in Gurdev Singh's case (supra).It is correct that in Gurdev Singh's judgment, there is no mention of grant of arrears but the order is clear and specific that the revision has to be given effect to w.e.f.01.05.1990.

A perusal of the order dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Executive Engineer indicates that the arrears were calculated w.e.f.01.05.1990 for the petitioners in Gurdev Singh's case (supra) and in the light of the contempt petition filed, they have ultimately been released the Prerna datta 2014.05.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh C.M.No.4997 of 2014 and CWP No.25021 of 2012 4 said benefit.

In the light of the above fact, it appears that the petitioner should be entitled to the same benefit.

Earlier, a similar matter has come up before this Court where because of the letter dated 09.08.2010, benefit of arrears were restricted to 38 months prior thereto.

The said matter was considered by this Court in its judgment passed in CWP No.17808 of 2011 titled as Ishwar Singh and another versus State of Haryana and otheRs.decided on 13.02.2012, where it was held that the petitioners would be entitled to the arrears of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

In view of the above, the impugned order restricting the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable and qua that, the same is set aside.

A direction is issued to the respondents to release the arrears to the petitioner w.e.f.38 months' prior to the date of filing of CWP No.3358 of 1994.

The arrears be released to the petitioner within a period of two months' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) April 29, 2014 JUDGE pj Prerna datta 2014.05.01 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh