Maya Ram vs State Of Haryana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 20615 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maya Ram vs State Of Haryana And Another on 29 November, 2023

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151433




CM-8479-CWP-2023 & CM-8482-CWP-2023 in/and
CWP-4645-2021 (O&M)    1              2023:PHHC:151433
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                               CHANDIGARH

102+242                                           CM-8479-CWP-2023 &
                                                  CM-8482-CWP-2023 in/and
                                                  CWP-4645-2021 (O&M)
                                                  Decided on : 29.11.2023
Maya Ram
                                                                        . . .Petitioner
                                         Versus

State of Haryana and another

                                       . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

PRESENT: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Dharminder Singh Rawat, Advocate for respondent No. 2
             ****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

CM-8482-CWP-2023

Prayer in the present application is for exempting respondent

No. 2 from depositing Rs. 5,000/- as cost which was imposed upon

respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.11.2022 passed by co-ordinate Bench

of this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that the

present application may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed with

liberty to the petitioner to file an application seeking review of the order

dated 30.11.2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Ordered accordinlgy.

CM-8482-CWP-2023

Prayer in the present application is for placing on record the

written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

Allowed as prayed for.

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151433

CM-8479-CWP-2023 & CM-8482-CWP-2023 in/and CWP-4645-2021 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:151433

CWP-4645-2021

1. In the present petition, the greivance of the petitioner is that the

petitioner, who was working on the post of the superintendent was entitled

for the pay scale of Pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs. 5400 keeping in view

notification of the Government of Haryana dated 06.01.2010, copy of which

has been appended as Annexure P-1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that for the post of

superintendent, the superintendent who had four years of regular satisfactory

service are to be placed in a pay scale of Pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs.

5400 which benefit was not extended to the petitioner despite the fact that

petitioner has already completed a period of four years while in service

before his retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the

petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintdent on 16.10.2008, on expiry

of four years service i.e. on 15.10.2012, the petitioner became entitled for

the grant of benefit of pay scale of Pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs. 5400

hence, the respondents are under an obligation to grant the said benefit by

refixing the salary of the petitioner as well as all the consequential benefits

which the petitioner will be entitled for, as the petitioner has already retired

on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020.

3. Learned cousnel for the petitioner further submits that in the

year 2018, the petitioner was granted the said benefit by the respondents-

themselves but the said order was not implemented by the respondents till

the retirement of the petitioner that being so, even as per the respondents, the

petitioner was entitled for the grant of benefit of Pay Band-2 with grade pay

of Rs. 5400 though, upto the retirement of the petitioner, the said order was

not implemented.

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151433

CM-8479-CWP-2023 & CM-8482-CWP-2023 in/and CWP-4645-2021 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:151433

4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State contest the claim of

the petitioner on the ground that for the grant of pay scale of Pay Band-2

with grade pay of Rs. 5400, a superintendent should not have simple four

years service but have four years of Regular Satisfactory Service whereas, in

the present case, service of the petitioner is not satisfactory keeping in view

various observations made in the Annual Confidential Report of the

petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record of the file with their able assistance.

It is a conceded fact that in case a superintendent has four years

of regular satisfactory service, he/she is enttiled for the pay scale of Pay

Band-2 with grade pay of Rs. 5400. The question which arises is that as to

whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case , it can be said

that the petitioner had regular satisfactory service of four years so as to get

the said benefit of PB-2 with grade pay 5400.

6. Learned cousnel for the respondents submits that as the

petitioner was promoted in the year 2008 as Supreintendent, his Annual

Confidential Report starting from the year 2009/10 onwards are to be seen

for adjudging the four years regular satisfactory service of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondents conceded the facts that the except for the

Annual Confidential Reports for the period of 2011-12 which is below

average, rest of the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner, the

petitioner had been adjudged as a good employee though the remarks

were recorded "not recommended for the promotion" in one of the Annual

Confidential Report.

7. From the pleadings, which has come on record it is clear that

except for the year 2011-12, all the other ACRs of the petitioner are good

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151433

CM-8479-CWP-2023 & CM-8482-CWP-2023 in/and CWP-4645-2021 (O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:151433 that being so, once the petitioner has been over all adjudged as a good

employee, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not had four years of

regular Satisfactory service. Even if, the Annual Confidential Report for the

year 2011-12 is taken into consideration then also from the year 2013

onwards the petitioner will be entitled for the pay scale of Pay Band-2 with

grade pay of Rs. 5400 as by the said year, the petitioner had four good

reports in his Annual Confidential record. That being so, the petitioner is

held entitled for the grant of Pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs. 5400

starting from 15.10.2013 onwards as the petitioner had four good reports so

as to qualify as per the definition of 'Four years Regular Satisfacory

Service' .

8. The present petition is allowed in terms that the petitioner is to

be granted the benefit of PB-2 with grade pay 5400 w.e.f 15.10.2013

onwards till he retires.

9. The arrears of the salary for which the petitioner becomes

entitled for be also calculated and released to the petitioner within a period

of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10 If the petitioner is entitled for revision of the pensionary benefits

by the grant of said benefit of Pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs. 5400, the

same will also be extended to the petitioner alongwith arrears within the

aforesaid period of two months.

11. As it is a conceded position that the petitioner was granted the

benefit of Pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs. 5400 in the year 2018 by the

respondents themselves but the said order was not implemented, keeping in

view the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S.

Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, wherein it is held

that an employee will be entitled for the interest on an amount which has

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151433

CM-8479-CWP-2023 & CM-8482-CWP-2023 in/and CWP-4645-2021 (O&M) 5 2023:PHHC:151433 been retained by the respondents without any valid justification. The relevant

paragraph of J.S. Cheema's case (supra) is as under: -

"In my opinion, even if the assertion made in the written statement is presumed to be correct it would not disentitle the petitioner for claiming interest. The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it."

12. Keeping in view the above, the arrears which the petitioner is

found entitled for, will also carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date the

said amount accrued till the actual release of the same.

13. The said amount of arrears alongiwth interest will also be

calculated and paid within a period of aforesaid two months from the date of

reciept of certified copy of this order.

14. The present petition stands allowed.

                                              (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
                                                      JUDGE
29.11.2023
Riya


Whether speaking/reasoned:    Yes/No
Whether Reportable:          Yes/No




                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151433

                                   5 of 5