[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjeet Miglani And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 December, 2025
117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-35645-2025
Date of decision: 01.12.2025
Amarjeet Miglani and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Riti Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of speaking orders dated 24.06.2025 (Annexures P-11 &
P-12) .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the
controversy raised in the present petition is whether the petitioners are entitled
to the protection of pay they were drawing on 01.01.1996 or not. Admittedly,
the petitioners were appointed and regularized as Junior Assistants with effect
from 01.01.1996. Prior to this, all Junior Assistants were in a unified cadre in
the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700 as discernible from Annexure P-1. On
16.01.1998, in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998,
the pay scales were revised to Rs.5000 to 8100 for all Junior Assistants with
1 of 4
effect from 01.01.1996. However, the First Amendment Rules dated
19.05.1998 (Annexure P-2) created an anomaly by restricting the higher scale
of Rs.5000-8100 only to those Junior Assistants placed in the cadre prior to
01.01.1996 and granting a lower scale of Rs.4400-7000 to those like the
petitioners placed on or before 01.01.1996. The cut off date fixed by the
respondents was struck down by this Court in CWP No.22422 of 2010 titled as
'Anil Kumar and others. Vs. State of Punjab and others' (Annexure P-3) and
the judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and by the Apex
Court as discernible from Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively. The petitioners
made a representation and served a legal notice seeking the benefit of the
judgment despite the respondents implementing the judgment for the petitioners
in another case as discernible from Annexure P-8 and thereafter, a bunch of
petitions was decided by this Court on 21.11.2024 in CWP No.10789 of 2016
titled as 'Prem Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others' (Annexure P-
10). The petitioner has filed CWP No.18396 of 2015 (one of the petitions of
the above said bunch) which was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2024 on
the statement made by learned State counsel that while considering the claim of
the petitioner, the letter dated 29.08.2024 i.e. Annexure P-9 of the present writ
petition, will be kept in mind and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under
the said letter dated 29.08.2024 and the same will also be extended. However,
in the purported compliance, the claim of the petitioner was again rejected on
the ground of cut off date of 01.01.1996.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 is not in a position
to controvert the fact that the identical prayer and the pay scale on the basis of
2 of 4
the pay anomaly was made in the writ petition filed in Anil Kumar's case
(supra). Further, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the
petitioners are not entitled to the benefit claimed as they were having a lower
pay scale of Rs.4400-7000.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of
the record, it transpires that the issue involved in the present writ petition has
been authoritatively settled by this Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra) which
was further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as discernible from Annexures P-4 & P-5, respectively. The
petitioners in Anil Kumar's case (supra) has sought the pay protection and
removal of the pay anomaly created by insertion of the cut off date of
01.01.1996 and this Court has considered the controversy and observed as
under:-
'The dispute raised in the petition is whether the petitioners are
entitled to protection of the pay they were drawing on 1.1.96 or not.
Admittedly the petitioners were promoted as Junior Assistants on
1.1.96. On 19.5.1998 the Punjab Civil Service(Revised Pay) (First
Amendment) Rules, 1998 were promulgated which were deemed to
have come into force w.e.f. 1.1.96. As per these rules the pay scale
for the post of Clerks and Junior Assistants was revised and it was
mentioned as follows:-
"The designation and the revised equivalent of the
unrevised pay scale of officials working as Senior Clerk and
Junior Assistant, as on 1st January, 1996, shall be protected
as a measure personal to them."
The short grievance of the petitioners is that since they
were in office on 1.1.96 they were also entitled to have their pay
protected. In the written statement it is sought to be argued that pay
protection would in fact, be available to those who were placed as
such prior to 1.1.96. In my opinion the clear meaning of the rule
would not lend itself to this interpretation. Once the petitioners
3 of 4
were in office on 1.1.96 they would be entitled to the benefit
granted to them by the Government.
It is thus declared that the petitioners would be entitled to
the protection of their pay in terms of the stipulation by the
Government extracted above.'
5. Further, as per the arguments raised by counsel for respondent
No.5, the petitioners were drawing a lower pay scale of Rs.4400-7000 is totally
misplaced. The petitioners in Anil Kumar's case (supra) had identical
grievance with regard to their pay scale as well.
6. In view of the discussion above, the present civil writ petition is
allowed and speaking orders dated 24.06.2025 (Annexures P-11 & P-12) are
hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of pay
protection and removal of pay anomaly to the petitioners in terms of Anil
Kumar's case (supra), including grant of revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8100
w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and also to consider their claim in terms of the Government
letter dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-9) within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
01.12.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
