Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 19 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052482
CWP-15301-2016 2024:PHHC:052482
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217
WP-15301-2016
C
Date of decision: 19.04.2024
Gurnam Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. Theprayermadeinthepresentpetitionisforquashingtheorder
dated 17.03.2016, Annexure P-11, whereby the claim of the petitioner for
grantinghimplacementinthehigherpayscaleofRs.14300-18150fromthe
duedatei.e.01.01.2001intermsofthestatutoryruleshasbeendeclinedand
furtherprayerfordirectingtherespondentstogranthimthebenefitofhigher
pay scale.
2. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner was
appointed as Agriculture Inspector (Fodder) on 09.10.1986, later
re-designated as Agriculture Development Officer (Fodder) w.e.f.
01.01.1986vidememodated21.06.1993,AnnexureP-1.Thereafter,various
petitions were filed,includingCWP-7077-2004bythepetitionerwhichwas
disposed of in terms of the decision inCWP-3677-2011,whichinturnwas
disposedofinaccordancetothejudgmentpassedbythisCourtinthecaseof
Dr. Naresh Kumar Kataria and others vs. State of Punjab and others,
CWP-23138-2010, decided on 05.01.2012, wherein the pay scales of
Agriculture Development Officers/Horticulture Development Officers were
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052482
CWP-15301-2016 2024:PHHC:052482
-2-
equated with that of Veterinary Officers of the Animal Husbandry
Department. The implementation of the same was carried out vide order
dated27.03.2015,AnnexureP-6.Thestatutorypayrevisioncameintoeffect
on01.01.1986,videnotificationdated19.05.1998,AnnexureP-2,howeverit
was granted to the petitioner from 01.01.2007, instead of 01.01.2001, only
on the premisethathisACRsbetweenthesaidperiodwerenotsatisfactory.
ThesaidissuealreadystandsdecidedbythisCourtinfavourofthepetitioner
in Gurmail Singh vs. The State of Punjab and another,
CWP-24782-2015, decided on 28.11.2015, wherein it was held that ACRs
have no bearing on the issue of pay scales,therelevantparaswhereofread
thus:
" 6. It is past cavil that the dispute is covered by the
decision of this Court when it equates the post of
Veterinary Officer and Agricultural Officer/Horticulture
Officer in the matter of award of pay-scales with
reference to the more beneficial pay-scales available to
Veterinary Officers are germane to the present cause
brought on behalf of a Horticulture Officer who enjoys
parity with an Veterinary Officer. The petitioner was
himself a party to the previous litigation which was
disposedofinhisfavourintermsofthedecisioninCWP
No.23138 of 2010. The basis of the orders were
dependent on reconsideration of the issue by the State
itselfandtheproductionoftheorderdatedDecember21,
2011acceptingparityamongstthetwocounter-partposts
inthesameAdministrativeDepartmentfunctioningunder
the Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab. It
wouldseemtobeasheerwasteoftimetogothroughthe
formal motions of summons issued to the State and to
receivereplyfromthemonlytobetoldthesamethingin
the future and, therefore, in order to save time in a
covered matter this writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated March 13,2013(P-7)issetaside.
Itmaybenotedthatthepetitionerretiredfromserviceon
September30,2002andnoarrearsofpayandallowances
are to be paid to him and in view of thelibertygranted,
there will be a notionalrefixationofpayandallowances
andconsequently,thelastpaydrawnwillberevisitedbut
the monetary benefits would be restricted to 36 months
from the date of the this petition. This is in view of the
order passed in Dr. Naresh Kumar Kataria'scase(supra)
on the basis of which CWP No.9936 of 2012 filed by
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052482
CWP-15301-2016 2024:PHHC:052482
-3-
Sukhdev Singh Sandhu and four others was decided on
May 23, 2012 by the learnedSingleJudgeofthisCourt.
In that petition, the petitioners have sought amandamus
directing the respondents to equate the posts and grant
them the same revised pay-scale(s)ashavebeengranted
to their counter-parts in the Animal Husbandry
Department, Punjab.
7 . A writ of mandamus is thus issued to the
respondentstore-fixthepayandpensionofthepetitioner
inthelightofthedecisioninDr.NareshKumarKataria's
case (Supra) read with the decision in which the
petitioner was a party. This would be done notionally
w.e.f. January 01, 1996 within a period of three months
fromthedateofreceiptofcertifiedcopyofthisorderand
irrespective of theACRsofthepetitionerwhichhaveno
material bearing on the issue of pay-scales attached to
posts/equatedpostssincethemixuphasresultedfroma
misreading of the rules as though the authority who
passed the impugned orderwasdealingwiththebenefits
under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. This
fallacy is removed from the impugned order. The
monetarybenefitsandarrearsofpayandpensionetc.will
becomputedandtheoutstandingdueswillbepaidtothe
petitioner restricted to 36 months from the date offiling
of the present petition i.e. November 26, 2015."
3. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts is unable to
controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed inGurmail Singh(supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
1 9.04.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
