Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deep Raja And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059970
WP-5417-2020 and
C 2024:PHHC:059970
other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
241+285
WP-5417-2020 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 01.05.2024
Deep Raja and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CWP-9613-2024 (O&M)
Ashwani Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CWP-9204-2024 (O&M)
Kirti Vijan and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, arebeingdisposed
of together by this common judgment.
2. The prayer made in the present petitions is for directing the
respondentstograntthefullpayintheregularpayscaleofRs.10300-34800+5000
Grade Pay w.e.f. the date of regularization of their services, in which regard the
submission made is on behalf of the petitioners that they were appointed vide
orderdated01.12.2014,oncontractualbasistothepostofMastersandMistresses
in various subjects, pursuant to advertisement dated 09.09.2012 and were to be
granted consolidated salary for 3 years, whereafter they vide order dated
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059970
WP-5417-2020 and
C 2024:PHHC:059970
other connected cases 2
09.12.2019, were shown to have completed the probation a day prior tothesaid
dateandthedateofjoiningonregularbasiswasgiventobe09.12.2017butwere
heldtobeentitledtothepayscalewithimmediateeffecti.e.thedateoftheorder.
Such condition is held to be oppressive by this Court in Baljinder Kumar and
others vs. State of Punjab and another, CWP-12583-2020, decided on
07.02.2024, by observing thus:
" 9. Indubitably, the petitioners,whowereappointedthrougha
regular process of selection as per statutory rules against
sanctioned posts as Master/Mistresses, albeit on contractual
basis and on a consolidated salary of Rs.6000/- per month,in
pursuance to the terms and conditions of the advertisement
dated 09.09.2012, which they had accepted and discharged
their duties akin to those appointed on regular basis. Terming
their appointment as contractual, was infact a misnomer. The
incorporation of an exploitory condition in the appointment
letter of the petitioners and the act of constraining them to
knock the doors of the Court, even when the issue has been
settledbyHon'bletheSupremeCourtinJagjitSingh(supra),is
deprecated. As a sequitur, they are held entitled to the
minimum of the pay scale."
3. In Polu Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1998 SCCOnLineP&H1778,
the Division Bench held that, "I n our opinion, the objection of the learned
AdvocateGeneraltothemaintainabilityofthewritpetitionsonthegroundthatthe
petitioners have accepted the terms of engagement without any protest isclearly
misconceived. The petitioners do not have any say in the matters relating to
enactmentoftherules,creationofthepostsormodeofselection.Allthesematters
lieintheexclusivedomainofthegovernment/employer.Theyarenotinaposition
to make a bargain with the government regardingtheconditionsofemployment.
Theyarenotinapositiontodictatethetermstothegovernment.Iftheymakean
attempttoenterintoabargainwiththegovernmentaboutthetermsandconditions
ofemployment/engagementandinsistonincorporationofthoseconditionswhich
aremorefavourabletothem,theappointingauthoritycanrefusetoappoint/engage
them. Therefore, acceptance of the conditions incorporated in the orders of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059970
WP-5417-2020 and
C 2024:PHHC:059970
other connected cases 3
appointment/lettersorengagementcannotbemadeagroundtodenyhearingtothe
petitioners in support of their plea that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in
appointing them with wholly unreasonable and oppressive conditions of
employment." Thetermsofappointmentlettercannotbemadeagroundtodeny
the just claim,beingarbitraryandoppressive,thuscannotoperateasanestoppel,
as held inRajni Bala vs. State of Haryana, 1995 SCCOnLine P&H 787.
4. Insofar as the pre-condition is concerned, the issue stands squarely
covered in favour of the petitioner in Jeewan Jyoti and others vs. State of
Punjab and others, CWP-21750-2012, decided on 04.10.2013, wherein the
action of the State, on not providing regular pay scale of regularised Computer
Facultyfromthedateofregularisation,asitwouldbeadmissibletotheemployees
upon joining the faculty and not earlier, was frowned upon by this Court, while
allowing the writ petition, relevant paras whereof read thus:
" On due consideration I find that there is no justification for
makingtheregularpayscaleadmissibletothepetitionersfrom
a date later thanthedatewitheffectfromwhichtheirservices
have been regularised. The explanation given by respondent
No.2 would have been relevant at the time of consideringthe
caseofthepetitionersforregularisation,buthavingregularised
their services they cannotfallbackonanyotherpre-condition
imposed upon the petitioners at the time of offering them
employment and more particularlysowhensaidpre-condition
wasalsowaivedoffaspertheownshowingoftherespondents.
Clearly, the stand of the respondents No.2 is absolutely
incoherent and unsustainable and has forced the petitionersto
come to this Court unnecessarily which has also resulted in
wastage of time of the Court.
onsequently, the writ petition is allowed with costs of
C
Rs.25,000/-,theimpugnedorderissetasideandthepetitioners
are held entitled to the regular pay scale with effect from
1.7.2011 which is the date on which such regularisation has
been conferred upon them. The costs shall be recovered from
the personal pay of the officer who has passed the impugned
order. The arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order."
5. The Division Bench in appeal preferred by the State, while
dismissing it on 16.01.2014, against which the SLP filed met the same fate on
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059970
WP-5417-2020 and
C 2024:PHHC:059970
other connected cases 4
08.09.2015, observed thus:
" It was rightly said that the respondents were entitled to get
salary from the date when their services were regularized.
After regularizing their services, no condition can be put to
restricttheirsalaryfromalaterdate.Itisnotindisputethatall
the respondents were in service when their services were
regularized."
6. Learned State counsel, despite his best efforts, was unable to
controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
7. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are disposed of in
terms ofJeewan Jyoti(supra)albeitwithout costs.
8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
0 1.05.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
