Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Chand Goyal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2025 11:10:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
CWP No.922 of 2015 2025:PHHC: 003156
09.11.2006 (P-13) passed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the
pe oner;
c) writ direc ng the respondent N: 4 to implement the office order
dated 09.11.2006 (P-13), whereby pe oner was allowed benefit of
proficiency step up a*er coun ng his past service w.e.f. 13.12.1978
rendered by the respondent N: 5 as allowed in the case of Sh. K.L.
Jhamb and also grant the pe oner all consequen al benefits i.e.
refixa on of his pay, arrears of salary and release of revised re rement
benefits together with interest @ 18 % per annum;
d) writ in the nature of mandamus direc ng the respondents to grant
the pe oner payment of employer share of CPF @ 10% together with
interest on the arrears of revised pay scale plus DA in terms of revised
pay-fixa on vide order dated 11.11.2009 (P-27) paid in installments up-
to 22.11.2013.
2. Admi:ed facts are that pe oner joined as a Clerk in Board of
School Educa on, Haryana on 23.05.1970, where he was promoted to the
post of Assistant on 13.12.1978. A*er applying through proper channel, he
was selected to the post of Assistant in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage
Board, and was issued appointment le:er dated 27.08.1982 in the pay grade
of 570 - 1,080. Pe oner was relieved by the Board of School Educa on,
Haryana on 14.09.1982 (A.N.) and he joined with Punjab Water Supply and
Sewerage Board on 15.09.1982 (F.N.), with no break in service.
3. According to pe oner, one Mr. K.L. Jhamb, an employee of
Chandigarh Administra on was sent on deputa on and subsequently he was
allowed absorp on in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board vide
Government Memo dated 21.08.1981 by trea ng him as fresh entrant in the
Board. He was allowed benefit of pay fixa on and proficiency step up by
coun ng his service rendered with the Chandigarh Administra on in terms of
the Punjab Govt. memo No.7/14/88-5PP(1)((2269)/18527 dated 01.12.1988.
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
CWP No.922 of 2015 2025:PHHC: 003156
4. Pe oner made a similar request for gran ng him the benefit of
pay protec on by coun ng his previous service rendered in the Board of
School Educa on, Haryana. He filed Civil Suit No.395 of 1989 before the
Courts at Chandigarh, but the same was dismissed on 31.08.1992. The appeal
preferred by him and the further regular second appeal No.2161 of 1997 filed
by him before this Court were dismissed. Even the review applica on filed in
RSA No.2161 of 1997 was also dismissed by this Court on 11.03.1999.
5. According to pe oner, he made a fresh representa on to the
respondents, who sought advice of the Examiner, Local Fund Accounts,
Punjab vide office memo dated 06.08.2002. The Department clarified to the
Assistant Controller, Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board that the case
of the pe oner regarding pay protec on was similar to Sh. K.L. Jhamb
because the basis for grant of benefit to both the employees was iden cal
and therefore, directed to take appropriate steps to grant the benefit of pay
protec on to the pe oner. Consequent to this order, the pe oner was
granted the benefit of pay protec on vide office order No.529 dated
27.08.2003 by coun ng his previous service rendered in the Board of School
Educa on, Haryana. Pe oner later on requested respondent No.4 for
gran ng him benefit of proficiency step up/ACP benefit as allowed to Sh. K.L.
Jhamb. As per pe oner, his claim was accepted and order No.901 dated
21.11.2006 was issued, whereby pe oner was allowed the benefit of
proficiency step up on comple on of 08 years' service w.e.f. 13.12.1986 by
raising his pay from 1,800/- to 1,840/- and benefit of ACP on comple on of
16 years of service w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by raising his pay from 6,600/- to
6,800/-.
6. However, the above said order dated 21.11.2006 was not given
effect to. The pe oner was allowed to re re from service on 30.04.2007
upon a:aining the age of superannua on. Therea*er, pe oner made
repeated representa ons for implementa on of the order dated 09.11.2006/
21.11.2006. He further requested for coun ng of his previous service
rendered in the Board of School Educa on, Haryana towards qualifying
service for grant of gratuity and also for grant of leave encashment, but to no
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
CWP No.922 of 2015 2025:PHHC: 003156
effect. On the basis of representa ons and repeated reminders sent by the
pe oner, impugned order dated 07.01.2013 was passed, whereby the claim
of the pe oner for coun ng his service rendered in the Board of School
Educa on, Haryana towards proficiency step up was declined without
assigning any reason. Pe oner made a detailed representa on before
respondent No.2 clarifying each and every posi on vis-a-vis Sh. K.L. Jhamb,
but the same was also rejected by respondent No.4 on 20.11.2013.
7. It is contended by the pe oner that above-said impugned
orders passed by the respondents in not gran ng him the benefit of gratuity
and leave encashment by coun ng his previous service in the Board of School
Educa on, Haryana and rejec ng his claim towards proficiency step up,
increments/ACP benefits are patently illegal, arbitrary and malafide and also
viola ve of the decision taken by competent authority, i.e. Managing Director
of the Board vide order dated 09.11.2006 (Annexure P-13) and also in terms
of Rule 2.3 & 2.7 of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Service
Regula ons), 1982. Pe oner further claims parity for grant of the benefit of
pay fixa on of his previous service rendered in the Board of School
Educa on, Haryana, via-a-vis Sh. K.L. Jhamb, who was also given similar
benefit by coun ng his previous service rendered in the Chandigarh
Administra on.
8. As per the short reply filed on behalf of respondent No.5 -
Haryana Board of School Educa on, a*er his selec on with the Water Supply
and Sewerage Board, Punjab, Chandigarh, the pe oner had resigned and he
was relieved from the du es on 14.09.1982 and thus, he severed his rela ons
with respondent No.5 and as such, he has no cause of ac on against the said
respondent.
9.1 In the separate reply filed by respondent No.3, it is not disputed
that pe oner had earlier worked from 23.05.1970 to 14.09.1982 as Clerk/
Assistant in the Board of School of Educa on, Haryana but it is submi:ed that
as per the terms and condi ons of the appointment le:er dated 27.08.1982,
his appointment in the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
CWP No.922 of 2015 2025:PHHC: 003156
Chandigarh was treated as fresh appointment, as it did not contain any
condi on regarding grant of any benefit a*er coun ng previous service
rendered by the pe oner in the Board of School Educa on, Haryana. It is
submi:ed further that there is no reciprocal arrangement between the State
of Punjab and the State of Haryana for con nuing the previous service of the
employees and therefore, the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
Chandigarh-respondent No.4 has rightly not taken into account the previous
service rendered in the Board of School Educa on, Haryana for the purpose
of qualifying service for grant of gratuity and leave encashment to the
pe oner. Pe oner has not even made any reference of Rules/ instruc ons,
under which he is seeking such type of benefits.
9.2 This respondent has further referred about the previous
li ga on, inasmuch as the civil suit filed by the pe oner for seeking the
same benefits was dismissed and that judgment was upheld up to this Court
in the RSA decided on 11.03.1999. It is also submi:ed that case of the
pe oner is not iden cal to Sh. K.L. Jhamb, inasmuch as Sh. K.L. Jhamb had
joined Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board on deputa on and was
later on absorbed in the said Board in the public interest, whereas the
pe oner had joined the said Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board as
fresh, as nothing was men oned in his appointment le:er.
9.3 It is further the stand of the respondent that as regards the
payment of gratuity for the period of 20 years, 03 months and 13 days, the
qualifying service of the pe oner for DCRG works out to be less than 20
years and 03 months a*er deduc ng the period of non-qualifying service, i.e.
extra ordinary leave. As the period of extra ordinary leave is not to be
considered qualifying service in this case under Punjab Civil Services Rules,
therefore, the total qualifying service was worked to be 20 years only. By
jus fying the impugned orders, prayer is accordingly made for dismissal of
the pe on.
10. In separate reply filed by respondent No.4, almost the same
stand has been taken and it is specifically men oned that pe oner had
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
CWP No.922 of 2015 2025:PHHC: 003156
earlier filed a civil suit on the same cause of ac on, which was dismissed and
it has a:ained finality as per the orders passed by this Court and that the
order of this Court was not challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court by the
pe oner and as such, the filing of the present pe on is wholly
misconceived and misuse of the process of law and hit by the principles of res
judicata. This respondent has also submi:ed that the case of the pe oner
via-a-via Sh. K.L. Jhamb is not similar because earlier to his appointment in
Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sh. K.L. Jhamb was working in the
Chandigarh Administra on and that pay scale of the State of Punjab and
Chandigarh Administra on are similar/same, whereas in the case of
pe oner, he was drawing lower pay scale in School Educa on Board,
Haryana and thus, there is no similarity in the two cases. Even otherwise, Sh.
K.L. Jhamb has not been impleaded in the array of par es either in the civil
suit filed by the plain ff, which was dismissed nor in the present writ
pe on.
11. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, apart from taking the same stand as
taken by the other respondents, also added that as per Rule 4.4 of the Punjab
Civil Services Rules, it talks only of the past service rendered for the State of
Punjab and no protec on/benefits of past service of State of Haryana or
other government body can be granted to the pe oner or like employees.
Accordingly, prayer is made for dismissal of the pe on.
12. In the replica ons filed to the respec ve replies of the
respondents, pe oner reiterated his stand.
13. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and
have apprised the record carefully.
14. As per own case of the pe oner, a*er Sh. K.L. Jhamb, an
employee of the Chandigarh Administra on, sent on deputa on and
subsequently allowed absorp on in the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage
Board, was allowed the benefit of pay fixa on and proficiency step up by
con nuing his service rendered in Chandigarh Administra on, the pe oner
had made a similar request for gran ng him the benefit of pay protec on by
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
CWP No.922 of 2015 2025:PHHC: 003156
coun ng his previous service rendered in the Board of School Educa on,
Haryana and filed a civil suit in November, 1989 before the Court of Senior
Sub Judge, Chandigarh but the same was dismissed on 31.08.1992. It is
further the case of the pe oner that the appeal filed by him was dismissed
by the Addi onal District Judge, Chandigarh on 21.03.1997; and then RSA
No.2161 of 1997 was dismissed by this Court on 27.11.1997 and even the
review applica on in this RSA was dismissed on 11.03.1999.
15. It will be relevant to reproduce the order dated 27.11.1997
passed by this Court, whereby RSA No.2161 of 1997 filed by the pe oner
was dismissed. It reads as under:-
"This is unsuccessful plain ffs regular second appeal. Plain ff filed a
suit for declara on to the effect that he is en tled to fixa on of his pay at
Rs.700/- plus Rs. 34/- personal pay in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 w.e.f 15-
09-1982 as Assistant with the defendant on the basis of last pay drawn while
working with the Board of School Educa on Haryana, with a further prayer
that defendant be directed to pay all the arrears and the consequen al
benefits. It is the case of the plain ff that he worked as Assistant: with the
Board of School Educa on Haryana from 23-5-1970 to 14-09-1982.
Subsequently, plain ff applied for the post of Assistant with the defendant
and was selected. According to the stand set up by the plain ff, he was given
an impression/understanding that his last pay drawn will be protected. He,
however, did not make any grievance for some me and when
representa on in this regard was made, the same was rejected thus leading
to the filling of the present case.
Defendant contested the suit sta ng that the plain ff is being paid as
per terms of his appointment. Defendant specifically denied that any such
impression/understanding was given to the plain ff that his pay shall be
protected.
Both the courts on the basis of evidence has come to the conclusion
that since the plain ff joined on his own and there being no s pula on in
the appointment le:er the relief now claimed is without any legal
jus fica on. The claim of the plain ff has thus been declined.
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
CWP No.922 of 2015 2025:PHHC: 003156
Before me, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
appellant-plain ff has been discriminated as pay of some other employees,
namely, Sarv Sh. Viney Kumar, K.L.Zham and Smt. Sudesh Kumari, has been
protected. Thus ac on of the respondent being viola ve of provisions of
Ar cle 14 of the Cons tu on of India, the appeal deserves to be accepted.
Having heard learned counsel for a while, I am of the view that the
appeal being wholly devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. Concededly,
the appellant joined on his own with the defendant as an Assistant. It is also
the conceded posi on that in the appointment le:er. there was no such
s pula on that earlier pay of plain ff shall remain protected. This per se
falsifies the stand set up by the plain ff. How and in what manner the
benefit of protec on of pay has been granted to certain persons was
specifically not in issue, yet the defendant on his own had explained the
same. This hardly supports the conten on of the plain ff. Finding no merit
in the appeal, the same is dismissed."
16. The review applica on No.17-C of 1998 in the aforesaid RSA was
dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.03.1999 by passing the
following order: -
"For the reasons men oned in the applica on, we condone the delay
in filling the review applica on.
We have heard learned counsel for the par es on merits of the case
and find no merit whatsoever in this review applica on. All that has been
urged before us is that the pe oner has been discriminated inasmuch as
persons equally situated were given a be:er treatment when their pay was
protected. One such example given is that of Mr.K.L. Jhamb. Learned
counsel represen ng the respondent has explained that so far as Mr. Jhamb
is concerned, he was not directly appointed to the post as was the case of
the plain ff- applicant. Mr. Jhamb was ini ally taken on deputa on and
therea*er was absorbed. We find no merit in the only conten on raised by
the learned counsel. The review applica on is dismissed with costs which
are quan fied as Rs. 1000/-."
17. It is clear from the aforesaid orders that it was observed by this
Court that the appointment of the pe oner with the Water Supply and
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
CWP No.922 of 2015 2025:PHHC: 003156
Sewerage Board was fresh. There was no s pula on that earlier pay of the
pe oner was to be protected and as such, the stand set up by him was
falsified. Simply because benefit of protec on of pay had been granted to
certain other persons was not in issue before the Court, despite which
defendant had explained the same but that hardly supported the conten on
of the pe oner. In the review order dated 11.03.1999, this Court also
clarified that as per the stand of respondents, Sh. K.L. Jhamb was not directly
appointed to the post as was the case of the pe oner. Sh. Jhamb was
ini ally taken on deputa on and later on absorbed and as such, the case of
the pe oner was not on similar foo ng as that of Sh. K.L. Jhamb.
18. A*er the passing of the aforesaid order dated 27.11.1997 in RSA
No.2161 of 1997; and order dated 11.03.1999 in review applica on No.17-C
of 1998, in case the order dated 21.11.2006 (Annexure P-13) has been passed
by the Manager, Personnel and General Administra on of the respondent,
gran ng him the benefit of proficiency step up w.e.f. 13.12.1986 on
comple on of 08 years of service and ACP w.e.f 01.01.1996 on comple on of
16 years of service, these orders are clearly in the teeth of the judicial orders
passed by this Court in RSA and the review applica on and therefore,
pe oner cannot be allowed any benefit of the said order dated 21.11.2006,
as has been prayed by him.
19. The appointment le:er dated 27.08.1982 (Annexure P-2) clearly
reveals that pe oner was stated as a fresh appointee, as this le:er did not
contain any condi on regarding grant of any benefit a*er coun ng previous
service rendered by the pe oner in the Board of School Educa on, Haryana.
Pe oner could also not point out any reciprocal arrangement between the
State of Haryana and Punjab for coun ng the previous service of employees.
Moreover, when Sh. K.L. Jhamb was absorbed from the U.T. Cadre by
respondent No.4, the pay scales of the State of Punjab and Chandigarh were
same, as is pointed out by the counsel for the respondents; whereas the pay
scale of the State of Haryana were different.
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003156
CWP No.922 of 2015 2025:PHHC: 003156
20. As is evident from Annexure P-13, pe oner was promoted as
Assistant in the pay scale of `525 - `1,080; whereas before the Punjab Water
Supply and Sewerage Board, the fresh appointment of the pe oner was in
the pay scale of `570 - `1,080. In these circumstances, pe oner cannot
claim his case to be on parity with Sh. K.L. Jhamb. Even otherwise, the case of
Sh. K.L. Jhamb was on different foo ng, inasmuch as he was ini ally taken on
deputa on from the Chandigarh Administra on and later on absorbed by the
respondent-Board. These facts have already been no ced by the Division
Bench of this Court in RSA, which was filed by the pe oner pursuant to the
dismissal of his suit and first appeal; and the conten on was rejected.
21. Consequent to the en re discussion as above, this Court does
not find any merit in the present pe on. Same is accordingly hereby
dismissed.
January 13, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? No
10 of 10
