Allowed

Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2022CWP/10163/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a Writ Petition seeking special increments for athletic achievements. The Court quashed the order denying benefits to a veteran athlete, relying on 1990 Instructions and precedent, directing the State to grant increments with interest within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.04.2002 quashed; respondents directed to grant five benefit increments with 5% interest within 3 months.

Raj Bala Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

470

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-10163-2002 Date of decision: 01.12.2002 Smt. Raj Bala ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶5

Present: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate, For the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

¶7

¶8

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.04.2002 (Annexure P-10) vide claim of the petitioner seeking benefit of five special increments for participating and getting positions in National/International Championships was rejected.

¶10

Facts as pleaded in the petition. The petitioner was initially appointed as Athletic Coach in the Haryana Sports & Youth Welfare Department on 07.01.1983. While working as Athletic Coach, the petitioner participated in various National/International Veterans Athletic/Sports Championships held in India and abroad and secured positions.The Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana vide policy letter dated 24.10.1990 has decided that Govt. employees who participated and secured 1st, 2nd & 3rd positions in National/International Sports Championships be allowed one and two increments respectively. As per para 2(iv) (b) of the Instructios dated 24.10.1990 (Annexure P-1), the total number of increments given to govt. employee should not exceed 5 in their service career.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the judgment rendered in CWP No. 324 of 1995 titled “ Pyare Lal Vs. Chief Secretary to Govt. VANDANA

¶12

2022.12.08 04:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

of Haryana” Reported as 1996(3)RSJ Page 787 , the benefit of special increments in respect of the achievements secured prior to issuance of policy dated 24.10.1990 is to be given to concerned employee w.e.f. 24.10.1990. The benefit of increments in respect of the achievements secured by an employee after 24.10.1990 is to be given from the date of achieving excellence in Sports Championships.Needful was not done despite petitioner’sparticipation in various National/ International Veterans Athletic/Sports Championships held in India or abroad and securing positions. Vide impugned order dated 22.04.2002 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner was denied the benefit of 5 increments from 24.10.1990 or from subsequent due dates by saying that same is not to be granted to the govt. employee or players for participating in Veterans Athletic/Sports Championships.Hence, the instant petition.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case

¶15

file.

¶16

In the return, achievements of the petitioner as a Sports Person are not disputed. Further more, specific stand has been taken in para 9 sub para II whereinstances, names and designations of the sports personnel whohave been accorded the same benefit in terms of the sports performance is mentioned. Having perused the pleadings, I find that petitioner has been denied the same on flimsy grounds without even adverting to the specific instances as aforesaid as borne out from the evasive response given in the return in the following terms:-

¶17

“9. (II) That in reply to subpara No.2 of para no.9 of the writ petition it is submitted that the legal Notice of the petitioner has been rightly rejected on 22.04.2002 vide which it was intimated to the petitioner that she is not entitled for the benefit of special increment being veteran player. The rest of para is a matter of record.”

¶18

5.1 Not only the stand taken is evasive, but my attention has been drawn

¶19

to the subsequent Instructions dated 26.10.2005 issued by the office of Chief Secretary which envisage that the benefit is to be accorded to all the sports VANDANA 2022.12.08 04:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

personnel as per their sports achievements across board regardless of the age. In fact,Veteran sports personnel have been accorded the same benefit. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the State that the benefit to the petitioner was denied on the ground of age flies in the face of the Instructions dated 26.10.2005 ibid. Apart from the Instructions issued in the year 2005, case of the petitioner in any case, is covered by the earlier Instructions dated 24.10.1990 which clearly envisage as below:-

¶21

“(iv) (a) The number of increments to be awarded for achieving excellence in national events should be laid down at a scale lower than for excellence, in Inter-national events and accordingly the sportsmen/women securing first, second & third position in National and International tournaments may be allowed one and two increments respectively.”

¶22

5.2 Apart from the two Instructions ibid , the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the Division Bench’s Judgment rendered in CWP No.156041997 dated 12.03.1998 contained at Annexure P-7 wherein speaking for the Bench S.S.Sudhalkar, J. (as he then was in this Court) observed as below:-

¶23

“We have heard the learned counsel parties. The learned counsel contends that from the for the achievements, the petitioner as mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled to five increments. The respondents stated in the written statement that petitioner was retired on 22.5.1992 and his compulsory achievement are prior to 1990.

¶24

The respondents have placed as Annexure R-1 the letter regarding the Instructions issued by the Government regarding special incre- ments which have been produced by the at Annexure P- 1. petitioner The respondents contend that petitioner is not entitled to the increments as he is not covered under the said letter.

¶25

It is not shown as to how the petitioner is not entitled to the increments as per the policy of the Government. The petitioner has relied upon the case of Pyare Lal v. ChiefSecretary to Government Haryana & Ors.. reported in 1996 (3) R.S.J. 787. The Division Bench of this Court has held in that case that the special increments by the executive instructions dated 24.10.1990 can not be denied to persons who had achieved the prescribed distinction prior to 24.10.1990. We find that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the said judgment and the petitioner was entitled to five increments. Out of which one increment has already been given. It can be seen from the achievements of petitioner that even prior to 24.10.1990. The petitioner had qualified himself for five increments.

¶26

VANDANA 2022.12.08 04:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

As a result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant four Increments to the petitioner with effect from 24.10.1990, as prayed for.”

¶28

In totality of the circumstances, I see no reason why the petitioner be

¶29

not accorded the benefit of the administrative Instructions issued by the office of the Chief Secretary as noted hereinabove as well as be not accorded the benefit of Division Bench’s Judgment.

¶30

Writ petition is accordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 22.04.2002 (Annexure P-10) is quashed. Respondents are directed to give the benefit of additional increments to the petitioner as per the Instructions dated 24.10.1990 (Annexure P-1) along with interest @5% per annum.Fresh orders be passed in accordance with the Instructions dated 24.10.1990 (Annexure P-1). Needful exercise be carried out within a period of 3 months from today.

¶31

At this stage, learned State counsel per his information submits that it is highly likely that benefit has been given subsequently to the petitioner. If that be so, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to any further benefit.

¶32

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE

¶34

December 01, 2022 Vandana ��

¶35

VANDANA 2022.12.08 04:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Raj Rani Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Satish Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Other

Balbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ujjagar Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Vinod Kumar Kalra and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.