Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044350
CWP-18583-2017 2024:PHHC:044350
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221
CWP-18583-2017
Date of decision: 03.04.2024
Karnail Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. The prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for quashing the order dated
15.06.2017, Annexure P-9 and directing the respondents to protect the pay
scale of the petitioners as on 01.01.1996 along with all consequential relief.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners were promoted as
Junior Assistants w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700, which
was further revised to Rs.5000-8100 vide Notification dated 16.01.1998,
Annexure P-1. However, vide Notification dated 19.05.1998, Annexure P-2,
an anomaly was created wherein employees who were designated the said
postafter01.01.1996wereentitledtothepayscaleofRs.4400-7000,whereas
officialswhowerealreadyworkingasSeniorClerkandJuniorAssistantason
the said date were to continue in the previous bracket, i.e., Rs.5000-8100,it
beingprotectedasameasurepersonaltothem.Thus,theywereaggrievedon
notbeinggrantedthesaidpayscaleonaccountofthefactthatpromotionwas
accordedon01.01.1996andnotpriorthereto.Itissubmittedthattheissue,as
involvedinthepresentcase,iscoveredbythejudgmentofAnilKumarand
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044350
CWP-18583-2017 2024:PHHC:044350
-2-
others vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-22422-2010, decided on
16.05.2012, against which LPA-1729-2012, filed by the State, was also
dismissed on 05.02.2014 and which stood upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP-21590-2014, decided on 07.01.2015 and the pay of the
petitioners therein, who were in service on 01.01.1996 was protected, based
on which this Court has also allowed CWP-23551-2019 on 20.12.2022filed
byRajKumarMahajanvs.StateofPunjabandothers,therelevantparas
whereof read thus:-
" 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
arguethatcaseofthepetitionerissquarelycoveredbythe
judgment passed bythisCourtinCWPNo.22422of2010
titled as Anil Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and
others decided on 16.05.2022 and LPA No.1729 of 2012
titled as State of Punjab and others Vs. Anil Kumar and
others decided on 05.02.2014, which stood upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.21590 of 2014 decided on 07.01.2015. Pay of the
petitionerstherein,whowereinserviceon01.01.1996was
protectedandtherefore,beingsimilarlysituated,petitioner
is also entitled to the similar relief.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
would submit that as per notification dated 19.05.1998
designation and revised equivalent of the unrevised pay
scale of only those officials was protected, who were
working as Senior Clerk and Junior Assistant as on
01.01.1996 and since, the petitioner was placed as Junior
Assistant on 11.03.1996, he would not be entitled for the
said relief.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perusedthepaperbook.ThepetitionersinCWPNo.22422
of 2010 were also appointed/placed in thecadreofJunior
Assistant after 01.01.1996 and the Single Bench vide
judgment dated 16.05.2012 held that once the petitioners
wereinofficeon01.01.1996,theywouldbeentitledtothe
protection of their pay.Thesaidjudgmentwaschallenged
by the respondent-State in intra court appealbearingLPA
No.1729 of 2012 wherein the Division Bench vide
judgment dated 05.02.2014, while upholding the finding
rendered by the Single Bench, restricted the fixation of
notional pay and arrears to 38 months priortothedateof
filing the writ petition, considering the fact that private
respondentsapproachedtheCourtafterlapseoflongtime.
The judgment dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Division
Bench was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid factsandcircumstances,
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044350
CWP-18583-2017 2024:PHHC:044350
-3-
the petitioner herein shall also be entitled toprotectionof
pay sale ofRs.5000-8100w.e.f.11.03.1996,however,his
right to fixation of notional pay and arrears shall be
restrictedto38monthspriortothedateoffilingofthewrit
petition.Totheabove,noobjectionhasbeenraisedbythe
petitioner.
7. Consequently, the order dated 02.08.2018 is set aside
and the instant writ petition stands disposed of in above
terms."
3. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts was unable to
controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgments orcite any contrary law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed in Anil Kumar and Raj Kumar Mahajan
(supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
0 3.04.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
