Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Haryana Through ... on 19 December, 2022
RSA-4618-2019 (O&M) -1-
248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4618-2019 (O&M)
Decided on : 19.12.2022
Jaswant Singh ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. B.S.Mittal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
The plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal impugning the
judgment and decree dated 18.03.2019 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sirsa
vide which judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 passed by learned Addl.
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Sirsa, was set aside.
Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their
original positions in the suit.
The pleaded case of the plaintiff may be noticed as thus;
plaintiff was appointed by defendant No.3 as Store Man on 13.07.1982 and
promoted as Storekeeper in the year 2004. One Dalip Kumar, who was
junior to the plaintiff, had joined the department on 06.11.1982 and was
drawing more salary than him. The plaintiff pleaded that as per settled law
a senior employee could not get less salary than his junior, hence, he was
legally entitled to step up his salary equivalent to his junior and also entitled
1 of 4
RSA-4618-2019 (O&M) -2-
to get the arrears arising out of the same. Even though the plaintiff
approached the defendants to admit his claim but they refused. Hence, the
present suit has been filed.
In the written statement, defendants submitted that Sh. Dalip
Kumar was given technical pay scale in compliance of judgment dated
19.11.2010 and 05.02.2013, therefore, the pay of said Dalip Kumar is more
than the pay of the plaintiff. It was further submitted that as per Haryana
Government notification dated 11.03.2014 and the Haryana (Abolition of
distinction of pay scale between technical and non-technical posts) Act
2014, the technical pay scale given as per Haryana Government Instructions
dated 30.03.1982, 23.08.1990, 26.07.1991 and 09.08.2010 stood
withdrawn. In the circumstances, if after notification dated 11.03.2014
technical pay scale was given to the plaintiff, it would be violative of the
Act.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff, at the outset, submits that the
following questions of law are involved in the present appeal:
i) whether the subsequent withdrawal of instructions
by the State Government giving technical pay
scale curtails the right of the plaintiff to get pay at
par with his juniors;
ii) whether the plaintiff has a right to seek parity of
pay with his juniors, who are drawing salary
higher than him, by virtue of directions of the
Court.
2 of 4
RSA-4618-2019 (O&M) -3-
Learned counsel submits that the above questions of law are
identical to the ones as involved in RSA No.1457 of 2021, and already
stand settled by this Court vide judgment dated 20.04.2022 in the above-
mentioned Regular Second Appeal wherein it has been held that a senior
employee would be entitled to stepping up of his pay while in service, if an
employee junior to him was drawing higher salary, even if, such raise in
salary had been given to the junior employee by virtue of a Court order. He
further submits that the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court has
attained finality as the SLP preferred by the State of Haryana against the
said judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 09.09.2022.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that
Government notification dated 11.03.2014 subsequently withdrawing the
technical pay scale given pursuant to the instructions dated 30.03.1982,
23.08.1990, 26.07.1991 and 09.08.2010 would have no bearing on the right
of the plaintiff to seek stepping up of his pay, which had accrued to the
plaintiff on account of his junior drawing more salary than him.
Per contra learned State counsel while opposing the prayer
made by counsel opposite submits that the plaintiff cannot claim benefit of
technical pay scale given to his juniors by virtue of the Court order because
the distinction between technical and non-technical pay scale has since been
withdrawn by the State Government vide notification dated 11.03.2014.
Learned counsel for the State, however, has not been able to controvert the
submissions made by the counsel for the plaintiff that the questions of law
3 of 4
RSA-4618-2019 (O&M) -4-
involved in the present case have been settled by this Court in RSA
No.1457 of 2021 and still further, SLP preferred to impugn the judgment
rendered in aforesaid RSA stands dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in SLP No.25095 of 2022 vide order 09.09.2022.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
material available on record.
The questions of law involved in the instant appeal have
already been settled by this Court in RSA No.1457 of 2021 vide judgment
dated 20.04.2022 and has since attained finality. The factum of the case of
the plaintiff being squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court
in RSA No.1457 of 2021, has not been controverted by the learned counsel
for the State coupled with the fact that the SLP preferred by the State
against the order passed in RSA No.1457 of 2021 has been dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.09.2022.
As a sequel to the above, the present appeal stands allowed and
the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated
18.03.2019 is set aside. Defendant-department is directed to treat the
plaintiff at par with his juniors and grant him the pay scale equivalent to
them.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
19.12.2022
sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
