Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chand Singh vs The Punjab And Haryana High Court At ... on 24 January, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011330
CWP No. 6900 of 2021 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(211) CWP No. 6900 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 24.01.2025
Chand Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab and Haryana High Court At Chandigarh and Another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the respondents.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner is for the grant of pay in the pay
scale of ₹10300 - ₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200 which was admissible to the
post of Stenographer Grade-III, has been declined by modifying the
appointment order of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
competed for the post of Stenographer Grade-III and was ultimately selected
and granted the appointment dated 11.05.2012 on ad-hoc basis in the Session
Division of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar in the pay scale of ₹10300 -
₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200 + DA with the clear condition that the
petitioner will be given the minimum of the pay scale along with Dearness
Allowances. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in a
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011330
totally illegal and arbitrary manner, the said appointment order was
substituted by the respondents vide appointment order dated 02.12.2013
(Annexure R-3) to change the pay scale of ₹10300 - ₹34800 + Grade Pay of
₹3200 + DA to ₹5910 - ₹20200 + Grade Pay of ₹2800 + DA. Learned
counsel also submits that on the date when the selection was made and
appointment was ordered, the post of Stenographer Grade-III had already
been granted the higher pay scale of ₹10300 - ₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200
w.e.f. 01.12.2011 onward, despite of the same the petitioner was granted
lower pay scale, hence, on the date of the selection and appointment, the
petitioner was entitled for the minimum of the Grade Pay i.e. ₹10300 -
₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200 + DA instead of ₹5910 - ₹20200 + Grade Pay
of ₹2800 + DA.
3. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply,
wherein, they have stated that though, initially the appointment was given to
the petitioner in the pay scale of ₹10300 - ₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200 but,
the same was modified immediately to the pay scale of ₹5910 - ₹20200 +
Grade Pay of ₹2800, which was admissible to the regular Stenographers as
on 01.01.2012. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that
there is no challenge to the modification of the appointment order and,
therefore, the claim to get the minimum of the pay scale as ₹10300 - ₹34800
+ Grade Pay of ₹3200 instead of ₹5910 - ₹20200 + Grade Pay of ₹2800
along with DA may kindly be rejected.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011330
5. Once, it is a conceded position that on the date i.e. 11.05.2012
when the petitioner was selected on the post of Stenographer Grade-III, the
pay scale of the said post was ₹10300 - ₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200, which
was also granted to the petitioner, the revision of the appointment order so as
to grant the un-revised pay scale of ₹5910 - ₹20200 + Grade Pay of ₹2800
was arbitrary and illegal and without any valid justification. Even if, the
petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013 titled as State of
Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others, decided on 26.10.2016, the
petitioner is entitled for the minimum of the pay scale of the post against
which the petitioner is working and the regular employees are being granted
the pay. It is a conceded fact that as on 01.12.2013, the regular
Stenographers Grade-III were getting the pay in the pay scale of ₹10300 -
₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200 + DA.
6. That being so, the initial grant of the said pay scale to the
petitioner offered appointment, copy of which has been appended as
Annexure P-2, was perfectly valid and legal and substituting the same with
appointment order dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure R-3) so as to reduce the pay
scale to a lower grade to ₹5910 - ₹20200 + Grade Pay of ₹2800 is arbitrary
and illegal and without any valid justification. Further, the respondents are
liable to comply with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
Jagjit Singh's case (supra) according to which, the minimum of the pay
scale is to be given even to the ad-hoc employees.
7. In the present case, the regular employees who were working on
the post of Stenographer Grade-III were getting the pay scale of ₹10300 -
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011330
₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200 hence, the minimum of the pay scale qua the
petitioner comes to ₹10300 - ₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200 and not ₹5910 -
₹20200 + Grade Pay of ₹2800, which was paid to them. The said action of
the respondents is also arbitrary and illegal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to rebut
that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagjit
Singh's case (supra), an employee working on a temporary basis/ad-hoc
basis, who has been selected after due advertisement, is entitled for the
minimum of the pay scale along with DA, hence, the action of the
respondents in modifying the appointment order of the petitioner dated
02.12.2013 (Annexure P-2) with the order dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure R-3)
is declared illegal. The petitioner will be entitled for the salary for the period
he has worked as per the appointment order (Annexure P-2). Any arrears of
the salary admissible to the petitioner as per the order Annexure P-2 be
calculated by the respondents and the same be released to the petitioner
within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of copy of this order.
9. The next question which arises is whether, on the arrears the
petitioner will be entitled for interest or not.
10. As per the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, an employee
will be entitled for the interest on an amount which has been retained by the
respondents without any valid justification. The relevant paragraph of J.S.
Cheema's case (supra) is as under: -
"The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that
one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011330
rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any
negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it
may result in higher rate because then it can also include the
component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances,
even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be
denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the
custody of the State and was being used by it."
11. In the present case, the petitioner was rightly appointed in the
pay scale of ₹10300 - ₹34800 + Grade Pay of ₹3200 vide Annexure P-2,
hence, non-grant of the same by substituting the said appointment letter was
arbitrary and illegal and the amount due to the petitioner under the
appointment order (Annexure P-2) was retained by the respondents and used
for their benefits, the petitioner will also be entitled for interest on the arrears
admissible to the petitioner under this order @ 6% per annum from the date
the petitioner was appointed till the actual arrears are paid to him.
12. Ordered be complied with within a period of eight weeks as
stated above.
13. Petition is disposed of in above terms.
14. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
January 24, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
5 of 5
