Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Sanjeev Kumar And Others on 23 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054453-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:054453-DB
(105) LPA-1582-2023 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others .......Appellant(s)
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar and others ......Respondent(s)
(2) LPA-586-2024 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others .......Appellant(s)
Versus
Vikram Kumar and others ......Respondent(s)
(3) LPA-593-2024 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others .......Appellant(s)
Versus
Anil Kumar and others ......Respondent(s)
(4) LPA-84-2024 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others .......Appellant(s)
Versus
Vinod Kumar and others ......Respondent(s)
Decided on : 23.04.2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 23
(in LPA-84-2024).
*****
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054453-DB
LPA-1582-2023 and LPA-586, 593 & 84-2024 (O&M) 2
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-1442-LPA-2024 in LPA-586-2024
CM-1462-LPA-2024 in LPA-593-2024
CM-211-LPA-2024 in LPA-84-2024
Applications for condonation of delay of 72 days to 228 days in
re-filing the appeals, are allowed, in view of the averments made in the
applications, duly supported by affidavit.
Delay of 72 days to 228 days in re-filing the appeals is condoned.
CMs stand disposed of.
CM-1444-LPA-2024 in LPA-586-2024
Application for condonation of delay of 5 days in filing the
appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit. Delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
Main cases (O&M)
1. Present letters patent appeals are directed against the judgment of
the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2023 and 01.05.2023. The learned
Single Judge firstly decided 5 writ petitions, lead case of which was CWP
No.1067 of 2020 'Baljit Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others'
and granted the benefit to the writ petitioners, in view of the judgment passed
in CWP No.3005 of 2018 'Brij Bhusan and others Vs. State of Haryana
and others' decided on 01.02.2019. The dispute was regarding the overtime
allowance on the revised pay scales. Keeping in view the fact that similar
benefits had been granted to the writ petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2013 in that case,
the learned Single Judge had noticed that the judgment had attained finality
and respondents had granted the benefits to the counter-parts and there was
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054453-DB
LPA-1582-2023 and LPA-586, 593 & 84-2024 (O&M) 3
specific averment made in paragraph No.7 & 8 of the writ petition to which
there was no denial, the writ petitions were allowed.
2. LPA-84-2024 is directed against the judgment dated 01.05.2023
passed in CWP No.413 of 2021 'Vinod Kumar and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others' wherein reliance was placed upon the first decision
dated 26.04.2023 passed in Baljit Singh (supra) while granting the similar
relief.
3. Counsel for the State very fairly pointed out that a similar order
passed in CWP No.30286 of 2018 'Gurinder Pal and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others' decided on 08.02.2023 has also been upheld in bunch of
appeals, lead case of which was LPA-857-2023 'State of Haryana and
others Vs. Joginder Pal and others', decided on 05.02.2024 by us. A perusal
of the said order would go on to show that we had also relied upon earlier
decision dated 23.03.2011 passed in LPA-858-2009 'The General Manager,
Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh Vs. Azad Singh and others'. The
reasoning given in the order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Joginder Pal (supra)
reads as under:-
"9. The petitioners had filed writ petition seeking the
writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to
grant/release the arrears of overtime allowance from
01.01.2016 to 31.10.2016 in unrevised and revised pay scale
alongwith interest. Apparently, the claim as such was based
on the earlier policy dated 01.02.2002 itself whereby a
Committee of the officers had been constituted for the
purposes of granting overtime allowance whereby, a
decision was taken that overtime from the month of
October, 2001 was to be paid in the month of November,
2001 and the instructions were to come w.e.f. 01.10.2001.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054453-DB
LPA-1582-2023 and LPA-586, 593 & 84-2024 (O&M) 4
10. The stand of the State in the written statement was that
instructions dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure R-5) had been
issued that there would be no arrears to be paid on the basis
of revised pay. Similarly, reliance was placed upon an order
dated 11.09.2019 (Annexure R-1) passed by the State during
the pendency of the writ petition wherein, a decision was
taken that no arrears of overtime allowance will be paid on
the basis of revision of pay for which only arrears had been
given. The overtime allowance on the revised pay will be
admissible from the date of notification i.e. 28.10.2016 on
the revised pay while falling back on the earlier instructions
dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure R-5).
11. The said issue apparently was considered by the
co-ordinate Bench in Azad Singh's case (supra) wherein
overtime allowance had been given for the period from
01.01.1996 to 31.12.1997 by the Labour Court wherein an
application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 had been filed. The same was in pursuance of an
overtime policy dated 23.07.1985 which was apparently
superseded by the policy dated 01.02.2002 (Annexure P-1
herein). Resultantly, the Division Bench came to the
conclusion while upholding the order of the Single Judge
that Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961
provided the right to overtime allowance and which was a
statutory right. In such circumstances, the order of the
learned Single Judge was upheld while noticing in the said
case that the notification had been issued on 01.01.2008
revising the pay scale of the employees and the revision had
been effected from 01.01.1996 and, therefore, the overtime
allowance was to be permissible.
12. In the present case also, we have noticed that a
revision of pay had been done from 01.01.2016 vide
notification dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) but arrears
had not been granted and, therefore, the same principle as
such would be applicable.
13. In such circumstances, we do not find any
plausible ground to interfere in the well reasoned order
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054453-DB
LPA-1582-2023 and LPA-586, 593 & 84-2024 (O&M) 5
dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Single Judge wherein, he
decided eight writ petitions, lead case of which was CWP-
30286 2018, wherein he had placed reliance upon the
binding precedent of the co ordinate Bench in Azad Singh's
case (supra). It is also not disputed that the judgment in the
said case was not interfered with by the Apex Court as it is
itself pleaded by the State in its appeal in ground 5(iii).
14. Accordingly, the present appeals stand dismissed."
4. Keeping in view the above, the present appeals also have to meet
the same fate of dismissal.
5. Ordered accordingly.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
23.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
