Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112701
CWP No.4476 of 1996 1 2023:PHHC:112701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 4476 of 1996
Reserved on: 18.07.2023
Pronounced on: 25th August, 2023
Satinder Singh and others .....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present: Mr.Harinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Sehajbir Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J
1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition praying for
higher pay scales by taking into account their previous services rendered
in the other departments on adhoc and regular basis and accordingly
make their pay fixations and release the arrears of salary along with
interest.
2. The petitioners have stated that they were appointed as Clerk
/ Typists vide order dated 03.09.1981 in the pay scale of `400-600 with
allowances. At the time of appointment, it was directed that their pay
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112701
CWP No.4476 of 1996 2 2023:PHHC:112701
would be protected and the period rendered in the earlier departments
would also be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of step up
increments on completion of 8 years and 18 years. The revised pay scale
Rules, 1988 were notified on 15.06.1990 and the Ministerial
Establishment was placed in the scale of `950-1800, `1200-2100 and
`1500-2640 on completion of 5 years and 10 years of service
respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
previous services rendered by the petitioners on adhoc and regular basis
in the various departments prior to joining as a Clerk on 03.09.1981
should be taken into consideration for granting the aforesaid benefit of 5
years and 10 years of higher scale of `1200-2100 and `1500-2640. He
relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Renu
Mullick v. Union of India reported in 1999 AIR 1152 and Union of
India v. C.N.Ponnappan reported in 1996 AIR 764.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer and submitted that the number of years of service as required for
grant of pay scale of `1200-2100 and `1500-2640 is on the post of a
Clerk in the Department. It is not meant for the services rendered in
previous departments as the pay scale is being granted in lieu of
promotion.
5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court
finds that the petitioners were offered appointment on the post of a Clerk
in the pay scale of `400-600 by way of transfer. The appointment was
temporary in nature and one of the condition of appointment was that if
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112701
CWP No.4476 of 1996 3 2023:PHHC:112701
there is no vacant post on which they can be adjusted, they will be
reverted to their parent department at any time without any notice.
6. From perusal of the schedule annexed to the writ petition, it
appears that the petitioners were all regularized before they joined the
Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab, Chandigarh. The date
of regularization has been mentioned in Annexure P-1, which has not
been denied.
7. In terms of notification dated 15.06.1990, the pay scale of
`950-1800, `1200-2100 and `1500-2640 are the various pay scales
payable to the Clerks upon completion of 5 years service as Clerk and 10
years of service to the extent of 40% and 40% of the total cadre strength
while the initial pay scale would be `950-1800 for all. The question of
protection of pay of an employee is to be seen at the time of initial entry
of service.
8. Thus, if any person in his earlier department was drawing
pay of `950 or more would continue to draw the said salary while
working as a Clerk in the present department. However, if the salary in
his previous department is more than the maximum amount i.e `1800, the
same shall remain protected to him alone individually and he will
continue to draw the same pay scale even though he may complete five
years of service as the same would be less than the maximum of the next
pay scale `1200-2100. The concept of pay protection has to be read in
the present pay scale.
9. Since all the petitioners were already working on the
substantive posts of Clerks in the previous department under the State
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112701
CWP No.4476 of 1996 4 2023:PHHC:112701
Govt., the benefit of aforesaid pay protection will also apply to them.
Similar view has already been taken by this Court in Dr.Daizy Sood v.
State of Punjab and another vide CWP No.2233 of 2008, decided on
27.02.2013 ,wherein, it has been held as under:-
"5. In view of the above it has been decided that :-
(i) An employee who has previously held substantively or
officiated in the same post, or a permanent post on the same
time scale or a post having identical three/four times pay scales
or in which time bound placement/grant of higher pay are
provided as in the new post, in a Government department or a
body incorporated or not which is wholly or substantially
owned by the Government, shall in addition to the protection of
pay actually drawn in the corresponding scale as per
provisions of Rule 4.4 (b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules,
Volume I, Part-I count his previous service for the purpose of
time bound promotion/grant of higher scale to the new
post/service. This protection will be as a measure personal to
him. He shall not be entitled to benefit of this time bound
promotion towards seniority and shall be placed lower to those
already higher up in the seniority list."
10. Rule 4.4(C) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1988 reads
as under:-
4.4. The initial substantive pay of a Government employee who
is appointed substantively to a post on a time-scale of pay is
regulated as follows:-
(a) xxxx
(b) xxxx
(c) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where
a Government employee holding a post in a temporary or
officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive,
temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying
duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112701
CWP No.4476 of 1996 5 2023:PHHC:112701
attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time
scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above
his pay drawn by him in the lower post provided it is certified
by the Head of the Department in which the Government
employee was holding the lower post that he would have
continued to officiate in the lower post but for his
promotion/appointment to the higher post:
Provided that if a Government employee either -
(a) has previously held substantively or officiated in -
(i) the same post, or
(ii) a permanent or temporary post on the same time-
scale, of
(iii) a permanent post other than a tenure post, or a
temporary post (including a post in a body,
incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially
owned or controlled by the Government) on an identical
time-scale; or
(b) is appointed substantively to a tenure post on a time-scale
identical with that of another tenure post which he has
previously held substantively or in which he has previously
officiated ; then proviso to rule 4.4 (b) shall apply in the matter
of the initial fixation of pay and counting of previous service for
increment. (ii) The provisions of sub-rule 2 of rule 4.14 shall
also be applicable in any case where the initial pay is fixed
under this clause. In cases, where a Government employee is,
immediately before his promotion or appointment to a higher
post, drawing pay at the maximum of the time scale of the lower
post, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be
fixed in the same manner as provided in sub-clause (1) above."
11. The question arises whether the adhoc period of service
should also be counted for the said purpose of fixation?
12. In my opinion, the said benefit of adhoc service which
culminated into regularization of service lateron, would only be
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112701
CWP No.4476 of 1996 6 2023:PHHC:112701
beneficial and countable for the said department where the petitioner was
working prior to being appointed in the present department i.e on
03.09.1981. The said period can only be counted for the purpose of
pension and retiral benefits. But the interpretation of granting pay
protection in the pay scale brought into force by the Rules of 1988 does
not envisage counting the said period and, therefore, the period after
regularization can only be taken into consideration for giving benefit of 5
years and 10 years of service as above. The transfer to the present
department would not deprive them of their previous service rendered on
the post of Clerks on substantive basis.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid
extent directing the respondents to count the regular substantive service
of the employees rendered in the previous department for consideration
of fixation of salary on completion of 5 years and 10 years of service.
The pay fixation shall be revised accordingly and arrears shall also be
released to the petitioners along with simple interest @ 6% per annum.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
th
25 August, 2023 JUDGE
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112701
6 of 6
