Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 19 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052482
CWP-15301-2016 2024:PHHC:052482
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217
WP-15301-2016
C
Date of decision: 19.04.2024
Gurnam Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral) 1. Theprayermadeinthepresentpetitionisforquashingtheorder dated 17.03.2016, Annexure P-11, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grantinghimplacementinthehigherpayscaleofRs.14300-18150fromthe duedatei.e.01.01.2001intermsofthestatutoryruleshasbeendeclinedand furtherprayerfordirectingtherespondentstogranthimthebenefitofhigher pay scale. 2. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Inspector (Fodder) on 09.10.1986, later re-designated as Agriculture Development Officer (Fodder) w.e.f. 01.01.1986vidememodated21.06.1993,AnnexureP-1.Thereafter,various petitions were filed,includingCWP-7077-2004bythepetitionerwhichwas disposed of in terms of the decision inCWP-3677-2011,whichinturnwas disposedofinaccordancetothejudgmentpassedbythisCourtinthecaseof Dr. Naresh Kumar Kataria and others vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-23138-2010, decided on 05.01.2012, wherein the pay scales of Agriculture Development Officers/Horticulture Development Officers were 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 21:27:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052482 CWP-15301-2016 2024:PHHC:052482 -2- equated with that of Veterinary Officers of the Animal Husbandry Department. The implementation of the same was carried out vide order dated27.03.2015,AnnexureP-6.Thestatutorypayrevisioncameintoeffect on01.01.1986,videnotificationdated19.05.1998,AnnexureP-2,howeverit was granted to the petitioner from 01.01.2007, instead of 01.01.2001, only on the premisethathisACRsbetweenthesaidperiodwerenotsatisfactory. ThesaidissuealreadystandsdecidedbythisCourtinfavourofthepetitioner in Gurmail Singh vs. The State of Punjab and another, CWP-24782-2015, decided on 28.11.2015, wherein it was held that ACRs have no bearing on the issue of pay scales,therelevantparaswhereofread thus: " 6. It is past cavil that the dispute is covered by the decision of this Court when it equates the post of Veterinary Officer and Agricultural Officer/Horticulture Officer in the matter of award of pay-scales with reference to the more beneficial pay-scales available to Veterinary Officers are germane to the present cause brought on behalf of a Horticulture Officer who enjoys parity with an Veterinary Officer. The petitioner was himself a party to the previous litigation which was disposedofinhisfavourintermsofthedecisioninCWP No.23138 of 2010. The basis of the orders were dependent on reconsideration of the issue by the State itselfandtheproductionoftheorderdatedDecember21, 2011acceptingparityamongstthetwocounter-partposts inthesameAdministrativeDepartmentfunctioningunder the Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab. It wouldseemtobeasheerwasteoftimetogothroughthe formal motions of summons issued to the State and to receivereplyfromthemonlytobetoldthesamethingin the future and, therefore, in order to save time in a covered matter this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated March 13,2013(P-7)issetaside. Itmaybenotedthatthepetitionerretiredfromserviceon September30,2002andnoarrearsofpayandallowances are to be paid to him and in view of thelibertygranted, there will be a notionalrefixationofpayandallowances andconsequently,thelastpaydrawnwillberevisitedbut the monetary benefits would be restricted to 36 months from the date of the this petition. This is in view of the order passed in Dr. Naresh Kumar Kataria'scase(supra) on the basis of which CWP No.9936 of 2012 filed by 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 21:27:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052482 CWP-15301-2016 2024:PHHC:052482 -3- Sukhdev Singh Sandhu and four others was decided on May 23, 2012 by the learnedSingleJudgeofthisCourt. In that petition, the petitioners have sought amandamus directing the respondents to equate the posts and grant them the same revised pay-scale(s)ashavebeengranted to their counter-parts in the Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab. 7 . A writ of mandamus is thus issued to the respondentstore-fixthepayandpensionofthepetitioner inthelightofthedecisioninDr.NareshKumarKataria's case (Supra) read with the decision in which the petitioner was a party. This would be done notionally w.e.f. January 01, 1996 within a period of three months fromthedateofreceiptofcertifiedcopyofthisorderand irrespective of theACRsofthepetitionerwhichhaveno material bearing on the issue of pay-scales attached to posts/equatedpostssincethemixuphasresultedfroma misreading of the rules as though the authority who passed the impugned orderwasdealingwiththebenefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. This fallacy is removed from the impugned order. The monetarybenefitsandarrearsofpayandpensionetc.will becomputedandtheoutstandingdueswillbepaidtothe petitioner restricted to 36 months from the date offiling of the present petition i.e. November 26, 2015." 3. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts is unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed inGurmail Singh(supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 1 9.04.2024 Hemant hether speaking/reasoned W : es / No Y Whether reportable : Yes / No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 21:27:08 :::