Allowed

Raj Rani and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2011CWP/6820/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court invoked Article 226 to uphold the petitioners' right to revised pay scales from their initial appointment date, dismissing the government's defense of delay in approval. The court quashed the specific order and directed the grant of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioners entitled to arrears of revised pay scale from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1993 and treated as appointed from initial date for pay fixation.

Raj Rani and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 6820 of 1993

¶3

Date of decision: July 20, 2011

Raj Rani and others

.. Petitioners

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶10

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

A.N. Jindal, J

¶12

The petitioners have invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 5.3.1993 (Annexure P7) and to consider them duly qualified from the date of their initial appointment and to grant them benefits from the date of their initial appointment.

¶13

The petitioners were appointed in the year 1987-88 in the Government aided Raja Ram Girls High School, Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa on J.B.T. post. The said school is Government aided private school receiving 95% aid for the salary of the employees as such the petitioners continued getting the scales as permissible to teachers of the Government aided schools up to 31.3.1990. Since the approval w.e.f. 1.4.1990 was not received in time, the management withheld the pay scale for which they were entitled and they were given un-revised pay scale which was existing prior to 1.1.1986. However, on the intervention of High Court, the Government granted approval of their appointment on 5.3.1993 with immediate effect. Consequently, the petitioners were not granted revised pay scale after 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1993. Since the approval of the post was granted and the petitioners were working on the sanctioned post since 1987, therefore, they could not be deprived of the revised pay scale to which they were entitled. The petitioners have also sought higher grade on account of higher qualifications.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No. 6820 of 1993

¶16

-2-

¶17

As regards the letter Annexure P7, it is observed that the petitioners were posted on J.B.T. posts and they are being given J.B.T. grades, therefore, the letter Annexure P7 does not effect the rights of the petitioners.

¶18

As regards the withholding of revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.4.1990, it is observed that since the petitioners were working on the sanctioned posts, the delay in approval was on the part of the government which cannot be used detrimental to the rights of the petitioners.

¶19

Mr. S.S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, when confronted with the situation, did not dispute about the legal proposition as discussed above.

¶20

In the result, this petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 5.3.1993 (Annexure P7) is set aside and the petitioners would be entitled to arrears of pay scale meant for the post w.e.f. 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1993 and they would be considered as appointed from their initial date of appointment for the purpose of fixation of pay.

¶21

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶22

July 20, 2011 deepak

¶23

(A.N. Jindal) Judge

Raj Rani and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Rani and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs the Controlling Authority and Ors.

Ved Parkash & Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Tek Chand Vs State of Pb. through the Secy. to Govt. Pb Deptt. of Coop., Pb. Civil Sectt. and Ors.

Dr.Suresh Kumar etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Rakesh Sood & Ors. Vs Registrar Coop. Societies Pb, Chd & Ors.

H S Garewal Vs Union of India & Ors.