Allowed

Subhash Chand etc. v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jul 2012CWP/24327/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders withdrawing annual increments and ordering recovery from handicapped petitioners appointed on daily wages. The Court held that the original equal pay order, based on counsel concession, included increments since regular employees earn them.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the orders dated 16.11.2011 withdrawing equal pay benefits (including increments) and ordering recovery of amounts.

Subhash Chand etc. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.24327 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 25, 2012

¶3

Subhash Chand & another

¶4

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶5

VERSUS State of Haryana & others

¶6

..... RESPONDENT(S)

¶7

. . .

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶9

. . .

¶10

PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms. Shruti Jain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents.

¶12

. . .

¶13

Augustine George Masih, J (Oral)

¶14

Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of orders dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure P-2 and P-3) passed against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 wherein the benefit of equal pay and allowances as granted to them in compliance of order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1281 of 1988 in which the petitioners were also a party, has been withdrawn limiting it to the extent of non-entitlement of the petitioners to the increments which were granted to them with effect from the date of appointment on daily wage basis till the date of their regularisation i.e. 8.7.1986 to

¶15

CWP No.24327 of 2011 [2]

¶16

1.4.1993. Recovery of the amount paid to them as a consequence of grant of increment(s) has also been ordered.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners contends that these orders are not sustainable so far as the petitioners were benefited in the light of speaking order passed by this Court and that too on the consent given by counsel for the respondent(s). He contends that the order which has been passed by this Court while allowing the writ petition was to grant the petitioners pay/ salary and allowances as paid to regular employees with effect from the date of their employment. He contends that had the intention of the Court been to restrict the benefit to minimum of the pay scale and non-grant of increments, it could have been so mentioned in the order. The withdrawal of the annual increments and the recovery ordered vide the impugned orders, thus, cannot sustain.

¶18

Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis, and vide the judgment passed by this Court, they were only held entitled to the grant of pay/ salary and allowances equal to that of the regular employees which did not include the increments and therefore the respondents have ordered the non-grant of increments for the period from 8.7.1986 to 1.4.1993 and ordered recovery as well.

¶19

I have considered the submissions made by

¶20

CWP No.24327 of 2011 [3]

¶21

learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the petitioners belong to the handicap category and the post on which the petitiones were appointed as Clerks, was taken out to the purview of Staff Selection Board and on the basis of the names sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the competent authority after following the due procedure proceeded to appoint the petitioners although on daily wage basis w.e.f. 8.7.1986. Petitioners preferred Civil Writ Petition No.1281 of 1988 which was disposed of by this Court by passing the following order:-

¶23

“Parties counsel jointly state that this case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh and another vs. The Engineer in Chief and others, AIR 1986 SC 584, in favour of the petitioners and that the writ petition be allowed directing the respondents to pay to the petitioners the same pay/salary and allowances as are paid to the regular employees with effect from the date they were employed.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel, this petition is allowed in the terms suggested. Ordered accordingly.”

¶25

A perusal of the above would indicate that the writ

¶26

petition was allowed with direction to the respondents to pay the petitioners same pay/ salary and allowances as are paid to the regular employees with effect from the date of their employment. This makes the intention of the Court clear and the same is based upon the statement made by counsel for the respondents. Even the

¶27

CWP No.24327 of 2011 [4]

¶28

Supreme Court judgment relied upon on the basis of which the statement was made i.e. in the case of Surinder Singh & another Vs. The Engineer-in-Chief & others, AIR 1986 SC 584 , the petitioners and all other daily rated employees were granted the same salary and allowances as are paid to the regular and permanent employees with effect from the respective date of their employment. Had the intention of the Court been to restrict it to the minimum of the pay scale, it would have been so observed.

¶29

It is not in dispute that regular and permanent employees earn annual increment on completion of one year of service and since the same pay and allowances have been granted to the petitioners as are paid to the regular employees, intention and the concession which was given by State Government would include the increments as well. The benefit of increments thus granted to the petitioners which is now sought to be withdrawn resulting in recovery vide the impugned orders dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure P-2 and P-3) thus cannot sustain and are hereby quashed.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶31

(Augustine George Masih) July 25, 2012 Judge avin

Subhash Chand etc. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chand etc. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Seth Vs Chd. Housing Board, Chd

Virender Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Manjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harjeet Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jora Singh Gill Vs Secretary to the Govt. of Punjab & Ors.

Dharam Vir Vs Husan Lal and Anr.