Allowed

(O&M)Nirmal Parmar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Oct 2024RSA/2597/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside lower court decrees that dismissed the suit. The Court held that withdrawing a granted pay benefit retrospectively without a show-cause notice violated natural justice and discriminated against the appellant compared to similarly placed employees.

What did the court decide?

Decree in favour of appellant; order reducing pay scale set aside; entitled to Rs.2000-3500 pay scale.

(O&M)Nirmal Parmar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) - 1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

-.-

¶4

724 RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision :01.10.2024

Ms. Nirmal Par m ar

....Appellant

Versus

State of Haryan a and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶11

Present: M r . Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

M r . Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

-.-

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Th e present appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and de c ree dated 17.02.20 0 0 passed by the learned Civi l Judge (Junior Division), Ro h tak whereby the s u it for declaration filed by the appellant was dismissed and the appeal preferre d against the said judgment an d decree dated 17.02.2000 was a lso dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2 5.01.2001 passed by the lear n ed Additional Dist r ict Judge, Rohtak.

¶16

Br i ef facts of the case as mentio n ed before the Civil Judge (Ju n ior Division), Roht a k in suit for declaration are as u nder:-

¶17

“The plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the act of defendant w ho vide letter no.ME-1/95/A- V /19742-47 dated 28.11.95 have minimised the plaintiff's pa y scale of Rs.2000-3500 to 2 0 003200 already given to her, i n terms of letter по. ME-1/91/2 3 2931 dated 13.3.91, who w a s appointed as Orthopist- c u m-

¶18

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) - 2-

¶20

Optometriest in the pay scal e of Rs.800-1600 which was rev i sed to 2000-3500 as per rules P unjab, 1987 and there is no p ay scale of Rs.2000-3200 in e x istence in Punjab Rules, 1987 a nd further alleged that the Department was not compe t ent authority to change the rul e s as the Financial Department has revised the pay scale of Rs. 800-1600 to 2000-3500 instea d of Rs. 2000-3200 and the defendants have not given a ny opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff and further alle g ed that as per rules 1987 Grou p B and C have not been separately categorised in the notificati o n rather the defendants suo- m oto presumed the plaintiff's post as Group C category Class III a nd Mrs. Parveen Oberoi has been presumed as 'B' Categ o ry. Hence, there is discriminati o n for which a notice under sec t ion 80 CPC was given to the d ef endants but to no effect. A de c ree be passed in favour of pla i ntiff that she has a legal righ t to draw pay in pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 and the actio n of defendants in minimising p a y scale of Rs.2000-3500 to 2 0 003200 is illegal, null and voi d .

¶21

2. On the other hand, defendants have filed their wri t ten statement by taking prelim i nary objections inter alia on the ground that suit is not main t ainable, suit is bad for mis-joi n der and non-joinder of necess a ry parties, plaintiff has no lo c usstandi and plaintiff is estop p ed by her own act and conduct a nd further alleged that the pa y scale of Rs.2000-3500 have been granted to Group 'B' emp l oyees whereas, the plaintiff i s a

¶22

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M)

¶24

- 3-

¶25

Group 'C' employee wher e as, Sh. S.P.S.Rathor is Grou p 'B' employees. On merit, admitt e d that w.e.f. 1.1.86 the pay scal e of Rs.800-1600 were revised and plaintiff was given pay scal e of Rs.2000-3200 which was l a ter on modified and was fixe d as Rs.2000-3200 to 2000-3500 in terms of letter dated 23.8.9 0 in respect of Gazetted Group 'B' Officers and not for group 'C' employees. But the modifie d pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w as inadvertently granted to th e plaintiff in terms of order d a ted 13.3.91, which has rightly b een withdrawn as the plainti ff is Group 'C' employee and f u rther alleged that the plainti ff is drawing the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 from the date of joi n ing as Orthoptist-cum-Optomet r iest and further alleged that the pay scale of Punjab State is not applicable to the Hary a na Govt. Employees. However, in order to distinguish Group 'B' Officers from Group 'C' e m ployees the pay scale of Rs.2 0 003200 was modified to Rs. 2 000-3500 in respect of gaze t ted Group 'B' officers. It has fu r ther been alleged that the plai n tiff alongwith Sh. S.P.S. Rathor e was appointed as Orthoptist-c u mOptometriest by a standi n g selection committee which is constituted for the recruitm e nt of Class-III employees wher e as, Smt. Parveen Obroi was sel e cted as Class-II gazetted office r by the State Govt. Thus, the p laintiff and Sh. S.P.S.Rathore are class-III employees and Sm t . Parveen Obroi, Orthoptist-c u mOptometriest whose name w as recommended by the HPSC for selection and appointed b y the Govt, is a gazetted Cl a ss-

¶26

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) - 4-

¶28

II(Group'B') Officer dra w ing the pay-scale of Rs.2 0 003500.Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled for the pay scal e of Rs.2000-3500 being the Cl a ss-III(Group 'C') employee. T h us, prayed for dismissal of the s u it.

¶29

Fr o m the pleadings of the parties, f ollowing issues were framed:-

¶30

1. Whether the pl a intiff is entitled to draw the pa y in the pay scale of Rs.20 0 0-3500 as per rules?OPP.

¶31

2. Whether the a c t of the defendant in reducing the pay of the plaintiff f r om pay scale of Rs.2000-320 0 to 2000-3200 is illegal, n ull and void?OPP.

¶32

3. Whether the sui t is not maintainable?OPD.

¶33

4. Whether the s u it is bad for mis-joinder or n onjoinder of necessary p a rties?OPD.

¶34

5. Whether the pl a intiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD.

¶35

6. Whether the pl a intiff is estopped to file the pre s ent by her own act and co n duct?OPD.

¶36

7. Relief.”

¶37

4. Af t er hearing both the parties and the perusing the whole record, the learned Civil J udge (Junior Division), Rohta k dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. Rele v ant portion of the same is repr o duced hereunder:-

¶38

“7.After hearing the a rguments advanced by both th e ld. counsel for the plai n tiff as well as Govt. Pleader for defendant, I have ob s erved that admittedly, the scal e of plaintiff was revised f rom 800-1600 to 2000-3200 w h ich

¶39

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶40

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) - 5-

¶41

was later on revised f rom 2000-3200 to 2000-3500 a nd the defendants vide l e tter dated 28.11.95 has minim i sed the pay scale of Rs.20 0 0-3500 to 2000-3200. 8. The perusal given to Ex.P1 shows that the plai n tiff was appointed as Orthoptist-cum-Optometriest on 21.9.87 whereas, the p erusal given to Ex.P2, Ex.P3 a nd Ex.P4 reveals that th e plaintiff was given increment s on different occasions. Ex .P6 photo copy of Haryana G o vt. Finance Departmen t Regulations Notification d a ted 29.4.87 also shows t he fact that initial pay scal e of plaintiff was Rs.800- 1 600 which was later on revise d to 2000-3200.

¶42

9. The defendants have placed on file Ex.D1 whic h is the same document as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 is letter d a ted 23.8.90 in respect o f revision of pay scale wherein the Haryana Govt. Gaze t te Notification dated 29.4.87 v ide which the pay scale w as revised w.e.f. 1.1.86 has been referred and it has b een also mentioned in Ex.P7 t hat certain discrepancie s in the pay scale revised w . e.f. 1.1.86 were pointed o ut by some employees associa t ion and also by some Dep a rtments and it has been decide d to modify the pay scale of some of the post w.e.f. 1.5 . 90. Thus, it is crystal cle a r that by virtue of Ex.P7 the p ay scale of the plaintiff h as been modified and minimise d to 2000-3200 w.e.f. 1.5.90 whereas, the plaintiff has not

¶43

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶44

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M)

¶45

- 6-

¶46

placed on file any c ogent and reliable documen t ary evidence to show tha t she was entitled for the pay s c ale of Rs.2000-3500 in s tead of 2000-3200 which w as allegedly minimised b y the defendants.

¶47

10. Whereas, on the other hand, the defendants have alleged that the plai n tiff is a group 'C' Govt. empl o yee whereas the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 was give n to Group 'B' employee s . The perusal given to Re a dy Reckoner for pay an d allowances and revised pay r u les, 1987 reveals that the p ay scale of Rs.2000-3200 gra n ted w.e.f. 1.1.86 to all categories has been modifie d to Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 1.5.90. Thus, the stand taken by the defendants has been corroborated and it was on the plaintiff to prove tha t she is group 'B' employees of the State Government an d therefore, entitled to the modi f ied pay scale of Rs.2000- 3 500 w.e.f. 1.5.90. Thus, after g o ing through the docum e ntary as well as oral evid e nce available on record, I arrive at the conclusion that the plaintiff being Group'C' employees was not entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 2 000-3500 although, it was ea r lier given to her but la t er on when the defendants have distinguished the cat e gories of Group 'B' gazetted a nd group 'C' employees, the pay scale of the plaintiff w as minimised to Rs.200 0 -3200 and plaintiff has miser a bly failed to prove that sh e was entitled to draw the pay s c ale

¶48

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶49

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) - 7-

¶50

of Rs.2000-3500 ther ef ore this issue is answered against

¶51

the plaintiff.”

¶52

Th e appeal preferred against t he judgment and decree d a ted 17.02.2000 wa s dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak v ide judgment and d e cree dated 25.01.2001. Hence, the present appeal.

¶53

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶54

Le a rned counsel for the appellant s ubmits that both the Courts be l ow erred in decidi n g issue No.1 and 2. He further c ontends that the judgments pa s sed by both the Co u rts below are contrary to law, p e rverse and against the evidenc e on record and pray e d for allowing the appeal.

¶55

Pe r contra, learned State counsel a rgues on the line of the judg m ent and decree and c ontends that the same are right l y dismissed.

¶56

I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the w h ole record of this c a se.

¶57

ANALYSIS OF RECORD

¶58

A perusal of the record shows that appellant was appointed as Orthoptist-cum - Optometriest in the scale of R s .800-1600, vide appointment l e tter dated 21.09.19 8 7. Vide letter dated 16.09.19 9 1 issued by the Director Medical College, Rohta k , the appellant-plaintiff was g ranted increments in the scal e of Rs.2000-3500 w .e.f. 01.09.1991, raising her pay from Rs.2181/- to Rs.22 4 0/under Rule 4.7 of Punjab Civil Service Rules , Vol-I, Part-I, as applicable to the State of Harya n a. Earlier thereto, the plaintiff-appellant was held entitled and placed in the scale of Rs.2000-3200, as per government notification d a ted 29.4.1987, in s h ape of Haryana Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987, w h ich AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentChandigarh notification rev i sed the pay scales of all the e m ployees drawing salary in the p ay

¶59

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) - 8-

¶60

scale of Rs.800 - 1600 to Rs.2000-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The said scale of Rs.2 0 003200 was later o n modified vide letter of Hary a na Government in respect of p o sts falling under G r oup ‘B’ with pay-scale of Rs. 8 00-1600 as revised in pay scal e of Rs.2000-3200. E x.P-7 and Ex.P-3 were issued on 23.8.1990, modifying the p ayscale of Rs.20 0 0-3200 to Rs.2000-3500 w.e . f. 1.5.1990, in respect of Gr o up ‘B’employees. T he plaintiff-appellant, by virt u e of Exhibit P-4 had been gra n ted annual increment in the scale of Rs.2000-60 - 2200-75-2900-EB-100-3500. V ide order dated 28.11.1995 of the Director, Bhag w at Dyal Sharma, PGIMS, Roh t ak, the plaintiff-ap p ellant was put in scale of R s .2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200 w . e.f. 1.5.1900. Thereby withdrawing order dated 13. 3 .1991, by virtue of which, she h ad been put in sc a le of Rs.2000-60-2200-75-29 0 0-EB-100-3500, fixing her pa y at Rs.2180/- in th e scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.05.1990, with the next dat e of increment on 1.9.1990, raising her pay to Rs.2180/- from Rs.2120/-, vide l e tter dated 16.9.1991. The Director, Medical C o llege, Rohtak, vide order d a ted 12.9.1991 had p laced the plaintiff-appellant in t h e pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w . e.f. 01.09.1991, rai s ing her pay from Rs.2181/- to R s. 2240/-. The order dated 7.9.1 9 95 from the Fina n cial Commissioner and Secr e tary to Government Health and Medical Education Department, Haryana, addr e ssed to the Director, Bhagwat D yal Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, simply stated that if t h e appellant was not eligible for the grade 2000-35 0 0 as per government instructi o ns dated 23.9.1990, then scal e of Rs.2000-3200 b e ordered for her and S.P.S. R athore. The reference of afore s aid order dated 7. 9 .1995 in the order dated 28.11.1995 of Director B.D.S.PGI M S, Rohtak (Ex.D- 7 ), withdrawing the order da t ed 13.3.1991(Ex.D-5), by w h ich appellant-plaint i ff had been put in the pay sca l e of Rs.2000-3500 without gi v ing AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentChandigarh any show-caus e notice to the appellant-plainti f f and minimising her pay scal e to

¶61

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) - 9-

¶62

Rs.2000-3200, retrospectively w.e.f. 1.5.199 0 , after the appellant-plaintiff h ad drawn salary in the scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f.1.5.1990, is not acceptable to t his Court.

¶63

Th e emoluments of the appellant- p laintiff was reduced retrospecti v ely without any sh o w-cause notice and without an y opportunity of being heard to h er. The benefit gr a nted to the employees could not be withdrawn retrospectiv e ly. Further a perusal of the record shows that ex tr act of Service Book of appell a ntplaintiff (Ex.P-8) also shows that the appel l ant-plaintiff was given salary of Rs.2675/- w.e.f . 1.1.1986 in the revised pay sc a le of Rs.2000-3200, with next d ate of increment as 1.10.1987. It also shows that t h e pay of the appellant-plaintiff w as subsequently fi x ed at Rs.10,500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1 9 96 in the pay scale of 6500- 2 008500-EB-1050 0 , with next date of increment o n 01.10.1997. The order minimi s ing the pay scale a n d emoluments of the appella n t-plaintiff without any show c a use notice and with o ut following the principles of n atural justice is bad in the eye s of law. 11. A p erusal of the record further sh o ws that an employee on the s a me post and cadre and in the same scale i.e. R s .800-1600, namely, Smt. Parveen Oberoi had be e n allowed to continue in th e pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, by observing that her case is different from tha t of the appellant-plaintiff, for the reason that she was selected by the Public Ser v ice Commission and appointe d by the Governme n t and, therefore, was a Gazet t ed Officer of ‘B’ category is not justifiable. The r e is nothing on record to sh o w that Smt. Parveen Oberoi w as appointed as a G azetted Officer or that she bel o ngs to ‘B’ category or that the p ost Orthoptist-cum - Optomatrist held by her is Gaz e tted or Class ‘B’ and that the s a me AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentChandigarh post held by a ppellant-plaintiff is class-III o r 'C' category post. There is no

¶64

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) - 10-

¶65

evidence on re c ord to show that the post Orth o ptist-cum-Optomatrist held by the appellant-plaint i ff and Smt. Parveen Oberoi were different or there was any Government o r der or notification categorisin g the post held by the appell a ntplaintiff and S m t. Parveen Oberoi as Gazetted or non-Gazetted or as 'B' categor y or ‘C’ category.

¶66

CONCLUSION:-

¶67

Th e evidence on record further sh o ws that the nature of duties of the post held by ap p ellant-plaintiff and Smt. Parve e n Oberoi were the same, their s c ale of pay was ini t ially same i.e. 800-1600, bef o re revision by the Haryana C ivil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987 and that t h ey were initially appointed on the same post of O r thoptist-cum-Optomatrist i.e. in the same cadre. 13. Th e action of respondents in tre a ting two persons appointed in the same cadre by m inimising the pay of one is discriminatory, since the nature of the work is the sa m e. There is nothing on record to show that Smt. Parveen Ob e roi, was gazetted o r of B Category and that the po s t of Orthoptist-cum-Optomatri s t is not of 'B' Categ o ry. Rather Naresh Chander, w h o was examined as DW-1 admi t ted in his cross-exa m ination that there is no letter b y which the post of Orthoptist-c u m- Optomatrist is o f Group 'B' or that of Group 'C ' category. He also admitted tha t no notice was gi v en to appellant-plaintiff before withdrawing the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500 a n d minimising the same to Rs.2 0 00-3200 vide order Ex.D-7. 14. In v iew of the above, I find merit i n the present appeal and the sa m e is allowed. The j u dgments and decrees dated 17. 0 2.2000 and 25.01.2001 passe d by the learned Co u rts below are set aside and the s u it filed by the appellant-plainti f f is decreed in he r favour. Letter No.ME-1/9 5 /A-V/19742-47 dated 28.11.1 9 95 AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentChandigarh whereby the pa y scale of the appellant-plaintiff has been minimized from Rs.2 0 00-

¶68

RSA-2597-2001 (O&M) - 11-

¶69

3500 to Rs.200 0 -3200 is set aside and the app e llant-plaintiff is held entitled to the pay scale whic h was revised to Rs.2000-3500 a s per Punjab rules, 1987.

¶70

De c ree-sheet be drawn accordingl y .

¶71

Pe n ding applications, if any, also s t and disposed of.

¶72

October 1, 202 4 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) A.Kaundal JUDGE

¶73

Whether s peaking/non-speaking : Speaki n g Whether r eportable : Yes/No

¶74

AMIT KAUNDAL 2024.10.19 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

(O&M)Nirmal Parmar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Nirmal Parmar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Devi and Ors. Vs Gian Singh and Ors.

Harbans Ram and Ors. Vs Mehar Singh and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Rajinder Kaur and Ors.

Hvpn Vs G.L.Sharma

Union of India and Ors. Vs Kishan Lal

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Haryana