The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that there was no infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the petitioners' challenge to their repatriation to the Civil Department at the lower pay scale, as their option for transfer was exercised before the higher pay scale was declared.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[1]
CWP No.5595 of 1997 & another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Om Parkash and others
... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and another
... Respondents
Inderjit Singh and others
... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others
... Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present:Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Karminder Singh, Senior Panel Counsel; and Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate, for the respondents.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
The petitioners in both the petitions are stated to have joined the services in the Diesel Component Works, Patiala as casual Khalasis on different dates and were granted temporary status in the year 1984 while placing them in the pay scale of 750-940 in the Civil Department of the Works. The respondents issued a notification for conducting a trade test for promotion to the higher grade of 800-1150 in which the petitioners are stated
Rajan Kumar 2014.01.30 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
CWP No.5595 of 1997 & another
to have appeared except the one petitioner, who had already been promoted to the higher grade.
The result of the trade test, which was originally held on 02.11.1992, was declared on 27.04.1993 and all the petitioners are stated to have qualified except the one petitioner, who had already been placed in the higher grade. It is, thereafter, that the petitioners are stated to have been transferred to the Mechanical Wing on 04.05.1993 placing them in the bottom of the seniority of the Khalasis in the pay scale of `750-940. This gave rise to the grievance of the petitioners as they naturally did not want to join in a grade below the grade whose benefit they obtained by clearing the trade test.
It is a case of the petitioners that they were assured that they would get the benefit of the higher pay scale and this assurance even was implemented but three years down the line, the higher pay scale was sought to be denied to them, which resulted in filing of OA No.259 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which stayed the operation of the order fixing the lower pay scale. This order was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 20.08.1996 with a direction to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and if they are not found eligible to be adjusted in the higher pay scale, to give them an opportunity of repatriation.
There were exchange of show cause notices and replies
[3]
CWP No.5595 of 1997 & another
qua the issue of pay scales fixation, but ultimately, the respondents ruled against the petitioners and the petitioners were repatriated with the protection of their pay scale and seniority on 27.03.1997. This began the second round of litigation when OA No.380 of 1997 was filed, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.04.1997.
The rationale for rejecting the case of the petitioners is contained succinctly in the impugned order, which reads as under: - “ We have heard the learned counsel at length and have considered the material on the file. We have not been shown any specific order absorbing the applicants in the Mechanical Department. They were transferred to that department on their options, but when they were aggrieved by the orders placing them in the scale of _750-940, which was available to the persons in that grade, they had challenged the same. After considering their pleas and the facts of their cases, this Bench had passed orders quashing the orders which placed them in a lower scale as they were already having higher pay in the scale of_ 800-1150, before they were transferred to the Mechanical Department. Finding that they may not be given the higher scale in the Mechanical Department, option was left for their repatriation to their original department.
[4]
CWP No.5595 of 1997 & another
The respondents have done exactly that and have now passed orders for their repatriation. Since they were never absorbed in the Mechanical department, and still hold a lien in their original department, no fault can be found with such orders of repatriation. We thus do not find any case made out in favour of the applicants.”
On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find no error in the aforesaid approach adopted by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The result of the trade test entitling the petitioners for a higher grade of 800-1150 had still not been declared on the date when options were sought for transfer to the Mechanical Wing. The petitioners, thus, opted for the Mechanical Wing when they were still in the lower pay scale of 750-940. The subsequent declaration of result on 27.04.1993 entitled the petitioners to the higher pay scale and thus they were not willing to work in the Mechanical Wing of the Workshop at the lower pay scale. It is in view thereof that they were reverted back to the Civil Department.
The petitioners were not even aware of the result of the trade test when they gave their option and thus the petitioners cannot be faulted for having opted for the Mechanical Wing of the Workshop as per their desire. The situation, however, changed on account of the trade test results and since the option was of the petitioners themselves, they were permitted to go back to the
[5]
CWP No.5595 of 1997 & another
Civil Department at the higher pay scale. The order of repatriation thus is in confirmity with the directions passed in the earlier OA No.259 of 1996 decided on 20.08.1996.
We are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition has possibly become infructuous qua almost half of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.5595 of 1997, such petitioners having earned their promotion in the original department or one of them even in the Mechanical Wing.
Since we find no infirmity with the impugned order, the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE
( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE
January 27, 2014 Rajan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the repatriation of petitioners to their original department at their lower pay scale was lawful given the subsequent declaration of trade test results.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioners' challenge to their repatriation contained any infirmity.
Om Parkash and others
Union of India and another
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Arun Palli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
