Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deep Raja And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059970
WP-5417-2020 and
C 2024:PHHC:059970
other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
241+285
WP-5417-2020 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 01.05.2024
Deep Raja and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CWP-9613-2024 (O&M) Ashwani Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CWP-9204-2024 (O&M) Kirti Vijan and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral) 1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, arebeingdisposed of together by this common judgment. 2. The prayer made in the present petitions is for directing the respondentstograntthefullpayintheregularpayscaleofRs.10300-34800+5000 Grade Pay w.e.f. the date of regularization of their services, in which regard the submission made is on behalf of the petitioners that they were appointed vide orderdated01.12.2014,oncontractualbasistothepostofMastersandMistresses in various subjects, pursuant to advertisement dated 09.09.2012 and were to be granted consolidated salary for 3 years, whereafter they vide order dated 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2024 20:42:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059970 WP-5417-2020 and C 2024:PHHC:059970 other connected cases 2 09.12.2019, were shown to have completed the probation a day prior tothesaid dateandthedateofjoiningonregularbasiswasgiventobe09.12.2017butwere heldtobeentitledtothepayscalewithimmediateeffecti.e.thedateoftheorder. Such condition is held to be oppressive by this Court in Baljinder Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and another, CWP-12583-2020, decided on 07.02.2024, by observing thus: " 9. Indubitably, the petitioners,whowereappointedthrougha regular process of selection as per statutory rules against sanctioned posts as Master/Mistresses, albeit on contractual basis and on a consolidated salary of Rs.6000/- per month,in pursuance to the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 09.09.2012, which they had accepted and discharged their duties akin to those appointed on regular basis. Terming their appointment as contractual, was infact a misnomer. The incorporation of an exploitory condition in the appointment letter of the petitioners and the act of constraining them to knock the doors of the Court, even when the issue has been settledbyHon'bletheSupremeCourtinJagjitSingh(supra),is deprecated. As a sequitur, they are held entitled to the minimum of the pay scale." 3. In Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1998 SCCOnLineP&H1778, the Division Bench held that, "I n our opinion, the objection of the learned AdvocateGeneraltothemaintainabilityofthewritpetitionsonthegroundthatthe petitioners have accepted the terms of engagement without any protest isclearly misconceived. The petitioners do not have any say in the matters relating to enactmentoftherules,creationofthepostsormodeofselection.Allthesematters lieintheexclusivedomainofthegovernment/employer.Theyarenotinaposition to make a bargain with the government regardingtheconditionsofemployment. Theyarenotinapositiontodictatethetermstothegovernment.Iftheymakean attempttoenterintoabargainwiththegovernmentaboutthetermsandconditions ofemployment/engagementandinsistonincorporationofthoseconditionswhich aremorefavourabletothem,theappointingauthoritycanrefusetoappoint/engage them. Therefore, acceptance of the conditions incorporated in the orders of 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2024 20:42:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059970 WP-5417-2020 and C 2024:PHHC:059970 other connected cases 3 appointment/lettersorengagementcannotbemadeagroundtodenyhearingtothe petitioners in support of their plea that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in appointing them with wholly unreasonable and oppressive conditions of employment." Thetermsofappointmentlettercannotbemadeagroundtodeny the just claim,beingarbitraryandoppressive,thuscannotoperateasanestoppel, as held inRajni Bala vs. State of Haryana, 1995 SCCOnLine P&H 787. 4. Insofar as the pre-condition is concerned, the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the petitioner in Jeewan Jyoti and others vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-21750-2012, decided on 04.10.2013, wherein the action of the State, on not providing regular pay scale of regularised Computer Facultyfromthedateofregularisation,asitwouldbeadmissibletotheemployees upon joining the faculty and not earlier, was frowned upon by this Court, while allowing the writ petition, relevant paras whereof read thus: " On due consideration I find that there is no justification for makingtheregularpayscaleadmissibletothepetitionersfrom a date later thanthedatewitheffectfromwhichtheirservices have been regularised. The explanation given by respondent No.2 would have been relevant at the time of consideringthe caseofthepetitionersforregularisation,buthavingregularised their services they cannotfallbackonanyotherpre-condition imposed upon the petitioners at the time of offering them employment and more particularlysowhensaidpre-condition wasalsowaivedoffaspertheownshowingoftherespondents. Clearly, the stand of the respondents No.2 is absolutely incoherent and unsustainable and has forced the petitionersto come to this Court unnecessarily which has also resulted in wastage of time of the Court. onsequently, the writ petition is allowed with costs of C Rs.25,000/-,theimpugnedorderissetasideandthepetitioners are held entitled to the regular pay scale with effect from 1.7.2011 which is the date on which such regularisation has been conferred upon them. The costs shall be recovered from the personal pay of the officer who has passed the impugned order. The arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 5. The Division Bench in appeal preferred by the State, while dismissing it on 16.01.2014, against which the SLP filed met the same fate on 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2024 20:42:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059970 WP-5417-2020 and C 2024:PHHC:059970 other connected cases 4 08.09.2015, observed thus: " It was rightly said that the respondents were entitled to get salary from the date when their services were regularized. After regularizing their services, no condition can be put to restricttheirsalaryfromalaterdate.Itisnotindisputethatall the respondents were in service when their services were regularized." 6. Learned State counsel, despite his best efforts, was unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are disposed of in terms ofJeewan Jyoti(supra)albeitwithout costs. 8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 0 1.05.2024 Hemant hether speaking/reasoned W : es / No Y Whether reportable : Yes / No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2024 20:42:06 :::