Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061349
2023:PHHC:061349
CWP-1067-2020 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(105-1) CWP-1067-2020
Date of decision:- 26.04.2023
Baljit Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
(105-2) CWP-15328-2019
Om Pal and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
(105-3) CWP- 20150-2020
Vikram Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
(105-4) CWP-21808-2020
Anil Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
(105-5) CWP-697-2020
Sanjeev Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2023 23:07:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061349
2023:PHHC:061349
CWP-1067-2020 -2-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Subhash Rana, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-697-2020.
Mr. Shyam Singh Chhokar, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-15328-2019.
Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in
CWP-20150-2020, CWP-21808-2020 and CWP-1067-2020.
Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned five writ
petitions as the controversy involved in these petitions, is identical. For the
sake of convenience and on a consensus between both the parties, facts are
being taken from CWP-1067-2020.
2. Challenge in the writ petition is to the impugned
communication dated 06.12.2019, Annexure P-7, vide which arrears of
overtime allowance from 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2016 have been denied to the
petitioners. A direction has been sought to the respondents to release the
aforesaid allowance to them.
3. Petitioners were appointed on contract basis against regular
posts of Conductors and Drivers in the Haryana Roadways as per details
appended as Annexure P-1. Their services were governed by Haryana
Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995 as
amended from time to time. Vires of the Rules were successfully challenged
by some employees and a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061349
2023:PHHC:061349
01.04.2013 passed in CWP-22516-2012 titled as Mohinder Singh and
others Versus State of Haryana and others, Annexure P-2, held that placing
the petitioners on consoldated salary is impermissible and they are entitled
to the minimum of the pay scale from the date of their initial appointment.
Respondents were directed to pay the arrears for a period of three years and
two months prior to the filing of the petition. In SLPs, preferred by the State,
this judgment was modified and the Apex Court by order dated 31.01.2017,
Annexure P-3, held that the employees are entitled to the arrears w.e.f. date
of the judgment, Annexure P-2. Although, the payment of the arrears was
made to the petitioners, the respondents did not grant them arrears of
overtime allowance on the minimum of the pay scale granted by the Court.
4. By placing reliance upon judgment dated 01.02.2019, Annexure
P-4, passed in CWP-3005-2018, Brij Bhusan and others Versus State of
Haryana and others filed by some of the colleagues of the petitioners,
counsel for the petitioners contends that a direction deserves to be issued to
the respondents to pay overtime allowance on the revised scales. Reliance
has also been placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-
30286-2018, decided on 08.02.2023 titled as Gurinder Pal and others and
State of Haryana and others, whereby, while disposing of a bunch of
petitions, a direction was issued to the respondents to grant arrears of
difference of overtime allowance to the petitioners in the un-revised and
revised pay scales for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2017.
5. Petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing a
response, wherein a stand has been taken that although the petitioners have
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061349
2023:PHHC:061349
been granted the regular pay scale in compliance of the judgment passed by
the Court, but they are not entitled to arrears of overtime allowance.
Reference has been made by the State counsel to the instructions issued by
the Government vide Memo dated 03.02.2010, Annexure R-1, wherein it has
been laid down that overtime allowance at the rate of revised basic pay will
be paid w.e.f. 01.01.2009, i.e., the date from which other allowances viz.
HRA, Medical etc. has been paid to the employees.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
7. Some of the counterparts of the petitioners have approached
this Court by filing a writ petition, which has been allowed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court by judgment dated 01.02.2019, Annexure P-4, which
deserves to be noticed and is reproduced as under:-
"The petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents
to release over time allowance admissible to them after the
decision of this Court dated 01.04.2013 rendered in CWP No.
22516-2012 and connected writ petitions, which has further
been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, vide judgment dated
31.01.2017.
On notice of this petition, the respondents are denying
the claim of the petitioners on the ground that neither this Court
nor the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the petitioners are
entitled to any over time allowance. Further there was no
prayer of the petitioners for overtime allowance before this
Court as well as before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners on the other
hand submits that once the petitioners have been given the
benefit of regular pay scale they are also entitled for overtime
allowance.
The argument of learned State counsel is rejected as the
petitioners were appointed as Conductors in the year 2008,
keeping in view Rules of 2004. The petitioners were getting Rs.
2500/- per month then over time was admissible to them of
Rs.20.16 and when their pay scale was revised to
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061349
2023:PHHC:061349
Rs.5600+1900+16% DA total Rs.8700/-, the petitioners were
entitled to over time allowance of Rs.70.16. The petitioners were
granted scale as per Rules of 2004. Once the pay scales have
been revised, the competent authority is bound to revise the
overtime allowance as well.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and direction is
given to the respondents to recalculate the over time allowance
on the revised scale, keeping in view the fact that pay scales
have been granted to the petitioners w.e.f 01.04.2013. The
arrears of over time allowance be given to them after adjusting
the payment, within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order."
8. This judgment has attained finality and in compliance thereof,
the respondents have granted the benefit to the counterparts of the
petitioners. A specific averment has been made in para 7 and 8 of the writ
petition to this effect and it has been pleaded that the petitioners are similarly
placed. There is no denial to these facts in the response filed by the
respondents.
9. Furthermore, no material could be brought to the notice of the
Court to distinguish the case of the petitioners from that of their
counterparts.
10. In view of the above, writ petitions are allowed in the same
terms as in Brij Bhushan's case (supra). A direction is issued to the
respondents to re-calculate the overtime allowance on the revised scale and
to disburse the differential amount to the petitioners within a period of four
months from the date of communication of a copy of this order.
26.04.2023 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Kamal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061349
5 of 5
