The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order that withdrew pay protection benefits for government employees absorbed from Municipal Committees. Relying on Bir Singh Lather and Balbir Singh, the court held the order void.
Quashing of impugned order dated 03.07.2023 and disposal of the petition.
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.
� CWP-5310-2007 (O&M) - 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
202
CWP-5310-2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.11.2024
Chiranji Lal and Others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG Haryana
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1 . The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 and directing the respondents not to reduce the pay of the petitioners that they were drawing prior to absorption in the Panchayat Department.
2 . Learned counsel would contend that the petitioners were initially employees of the Municipal Committees/Corporations, whereafter they were absorbed in the aforesaid Department vide letter dated 20.12.1999 and their pay was protected, but the same was withdrawn vide the impugned order. This case was admitted in view of the pendency of Bir Singh Lather and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others , CWP-16394-2004, along with other connected petitions,
in terms of which even the interim order was also granted, which were decided on 24.05.2010 and the same reads thus:
“1. Based upon common question of law and identical facts, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioners in these cases were employees of
MOHIT 2024.11.14 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
� CWP-5310-2007 (O&M) - 2 -
Municipal Committees/Corporations. On being declared surplus in those organizations, they were absorbed in different Government Departments. On their absorption, their pay was fixed by taking into consideration the salary drawn in their parent organizations. As a matter of fact, their pay was protected while absorbing them in the government departments. Later, vide orders, impugned in this writ petitions, the benefit of pay protection has been withdrawn and their pay was re-fixed in the lower scale with consequential recovery. These orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. The controversy in these petitions is clearly covered by earlier judgment of this Court dated 27.12.1997 in CWP No.11379 of 1997 titled ' Balbir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others ' .
3. In the aforesaid writ petition all patwaries, working in Punjab State Tubewell Corporation, were absorbed in Revenue Department and their pay was protected and later on withdrawn, considering the controversy this Court passed the following order :-
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that if the Government as a Welfare State reappointed the petitioners, after having been declared surplus in the Corporation, it would have to give the protection of the legal rights, which such appointees have under relevant rules. No doubt the petitioners could not claim re-employment as a matter of right on having been declared surplus, but once they had been reemployed they may be considered as fresh appointees, but their pay shall have to be protected under Rule 4.4 of the Punjab CSR, Vol. I, Part I, referred to above. They may be treated as fresh appointees, but for fixation of their pay, Rule 4.4 (supra) will come into play. Admittedly, the petitioners were not removed or dismissed by the Corporation nor had they resigned. They were holding permanent post in identical pay scale in the Corporation. The petitioners are the type of persons envisaged by Proviso 2 to Rule 4.4 (b)(1)(iii) and consequently under Clause 2 of the Proviso their initial pay cannot be less than the pay they drew in the Corporation at the time of re-employment. Unfortunately, we find from the impugned order that the authorities have not applied their mind to the importance of Rule 4.4 (supra).
For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and quash the orders of the State Government whereby the claim of the petitioners for the protections of their last pay drawn at the time of their reemployment in the Government has been negative and hold that the petitioners would be entitled to the last pay which they drew in the Corporation at the time of their
MOHIT 2024.11.14 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
� CWP-5310-2007 (O&M) - 3 -
re- employment in the Government service in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 and would, accordingly, be entitled to the increments thereon. The pay of the petitioners will, accordingly be calculated and the arrears would be paid within a period of three months of the receipts of a copy of this order, either from this court or a certified copy thereof from the petitioners, whichever is earlier".
4. The aforesaid judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal preferred by the State of Punjab, was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2001 in Civil Appeal No.59551 of 1999 alongwith other connected matters. 5. In view of the above, these petitions are disposed of in terms of above referred judgments. Petitioners shall be entitled to similar relief.
6. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of all connected cases.”
3 . Prayer made is for disposal of this petition in view of the aforesaid judgment as it covers the case on all fours, which learned State counsel despite her best efforts has been unable to controvert or draw out any distinctive aspects therein.
4 . In wake of the above, the present petition is disposed of in terms of
Bi r Singh Lather (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
| 14.11.2024 | |
|---|---|
| M.Kamra | |
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes / No |
| Whether reportable | : Yes / No |
MOHIT 2024.11.14 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition is maintainable for quashing an order that reduced the pay of absorbed employees contrary to established pay protection precedents.
Whether the impugned order withdrawing pay protection benefits violates the legal rights of absorbed employees protected by prior judgment.
Whether the petition should be disposed of in terms of the ratio established in Bir Singh Lather and Balbir Singh.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bir Singh Lather and Others vs. State of Haryana and OthersFollowed¶17
Bir Singh Lather and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, CWP-16394-2004
Balbir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and othersFollowed¶23
Balbir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.11379 of 1997
Chiranji Lal and Others
State of Haryana and Others
Aman Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
