Punjab-Haryana High Court
R.P. Aggarwal And Ors vs The Hry. State Coop. Supply And Mktng ... on 11 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034087
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034087
CWP-2961-1998 (O&M) -1-
215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2961-1998(O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.03.2024
R.P. Aggarwal & ors.
..... Petitioners
Versus
The Haryana State Cooperative Supply
and Marketing Federation Ltd.(HAFED) & ors.
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl.A.G., Haryana
for respondents No.2 & 3.
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to
quash order dated 28.03.1997 passed by respondent No.3 as also writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the special pay to the Section
Officers (Accounts) working with the HAFED as has been approved by the Board
of Directors as well as Registrar Cooperative Societies as provided under the rules.
2. The present writ petition is of the year 1998 but nobody has
appeared on behalf the petitioners. However, the order dated 10.07.2017 passed
by the Daily Lok Adalat would show that petitioners No.3 and 4 appeared in
person. However, today the case was listed for hearing and when it called
nobody has appeared on behalf of any of the petitioners.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034087
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034087
CWP-2961-1998 (O&M) -2-
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the
petitioners are seeking grant of special pay in the light of the decision of the
Board of Directors of the HAFED (Annexure P-8) whereby it was so decided
that with regard to revision of pay scale and grant of special pay to the
Accountant Grade 'A' (redesignated as Section Officer), the HAFED and Board
of Directors had approved the aforesaid agenda Item No.11. He submitted that
although it was for the Board of Directors but it was referred to the Haryana
Bureau of Public Enterprises for their concurrence and in the absence of their
concurrence, the same should not be considered to have been finalised. He
submitted that thereafter, vide Annexure P-10, HAFED sent the aforesaid to the
Financial Commissioner, Secretary Government of Haryana and also to the
Department of Cooperation in this regard. Thereafter, vide order Annexure P-
12, the standing Committee of the Public Enterprises under the chairmanship of
the Chairman, Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises and standing Committee
did not accord concurrence to the aforesaid approval on the ground that the
Section Officer working in the State of Haryana are SAS qualified and having
pay scale of Rs.2000-3200+100 S.P, whereas Section Officer working in the
Federation (earlier designated as Accountant Grade A) are not SAS qualified so
the question of any parity does not arise between the Section Officer of
Federation and Section Officer working in the State of Haryana. Therefore, the
Standing Committee of the Public Enterprises in consultation with Finance
Department did not approve the proposal of the HAFED in regard to grant of
special pay to the Section Officers working in the HAFED, who are not SAS
qualified. He also submitted that as per the aforesaid, the decision of the
Standing Committee was also based upon the judgment of the High Court in
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034087
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:034087
CWP-2961-1998 (O&M) -3-
CWP No.10319 of 1996 (P. Roy & Ors. Vs. Haryana Seeds Development
Corporation Ltd. & Ors.) decided on 10.01.1997, whereby the petition was
dismissed. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid position where the parity
could not be established, the petitioners are not entitled for the grant of special
pay.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents.
5. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-8) would show that the
Board of Directors of HAFED had approved the grant of special pay, subject to
the concurrence by the Finance Department, but later on Harayana Bureau of
Enterprises did not concur the same vide Annexure P-12.
6. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.
However, since neither the petitioners nor their counsel are present, liberty is
granted to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for the revival of
the present petition, in case, any cause of action survives and if they so desire.
7. Copy of this order be sent to all the petitioners through
registered post.
11.03.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
monika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034087
3 of 3
