Dismissed

Gurdev Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Oct 2024RSA/273/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against lower courts' dismissal of a suit seeking declaration that withholding of annual increments was illegal and mandatory injunction directing release of increments. Bench dismissed appeal, holding stoppage was not a major penalty under the 1970 Rules applicable at the relevant time.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Haryana — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

RSA-273-2001

¶2

- 1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

RSA-273-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.10.2024

¶6

Gurdev Singh ....Appellant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Haryan a ....Respondent

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶10

Present: M r . Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the a ppellant. M r . Harish Nain, AAG Haryana.

¶11

-.-

¶12

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral).

¶13

Th e present appeal is filed agai n st the judgment and decree d a ted 22.12.1998 pas s ed by the learned Civil Judge ( J r. Division), Ambala and judg m ent and decree da t ed 26.07.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Ambala, whereby the s u it seeking a decree for decla r ation to the effect that actio n of defendant in w i thholding his annual increme n t since the year 1971 be decl a red illegal and agai n st the principles of natural ju s tice, with a consequential relie f of mandatory inju n ction directing the defendants t o release all the annual increm e nts for the aforesai d period, was dismissed vide ju d gment and decree dated 22.12.1 9 98 and the appea l filed against the same wa s dismissed vide judgment d a ted 26.07.2000.

¶14

Th e case of the appellant before t h e learned Trial Court was tha t he TRIPTI SAINIjoined the servi c e as conductor with Haryana R o adways in October 1969 in the p ay 2024.10.19 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

RSA-273-2001 - 2-

¶16

scale of Rs.110-225 and he has not been gran t ed any annual increment since the year 1971. In the year 1979, pay scales w e re revised by the Governmen t of Haryana and b a sic pay of the plaintiff/appella n t was fixed at Rs.420/- per mo n th. Thereafter, pay scales were revised in the yea r 1987 w.e.f 1986 and basic pa y of the plaintiff w a s fixed at Rs.1050/-. Till dat e , plaintiff/appellant is drawing his basic salary a nd he has not been granted any annual increment. T he plaintiff/appell a nt made numerous representati o ns to grant him annual increm e nts but to no a v ail. Finally, a notice dated 08.10.1995 was issued to the defendant/resp o ndent in this regard. Finding n o other way, suit seeking declara t ion with a consequ e ntial relief of mandatory injunc t ion in this regard was filed. 3. Th e respondent-defendant filed t h e written statement admitting the appointment of plaintiff/appellant as conductor in the year 1969 in the pay scal e of 110-225. It is averred that first annual increment was granted to the plaintiff/appell a nt w.e.f. 21.07.1971, when his m onthly pay was raised to Rs.1 1 4/from Rs.110/-. Again, monthly pay of plaintiff/appellant was raised to Rs.1 1 8/w.e.f. 06.09.19 7 3 and thereafter, to Rs.122/- a nd Rs.126/- w.e.f. 08.10.1975 and 13.12.1978, r e spectively. On revision o f pay scales, monthly pay of plaintiff/appell a nt was fixed at Rs.430/- w.e. f 02.07.1979. On further revis i on, monthly basic p ay of plaintiff/appellant was r e vised to Rs.1080/-. In as man y as 31 disciplinar y actions were taken against plaintiff/appellant, his 41 an n ual increments we r e stopped and the said fact is well within the knowledg e of plaintiff/appell a nt. Accordingly, dismissal of su i t was prayed. 4. O n the pleadings of the parties, t h e following issues were frame d by the learned Trial Court:-

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2024.10.19 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-273-2001 - 3-

¶19

Whether the plaintiff is e ntitled to a declaration that the increments in his pay scale have il l egally been with held as allege d , if so, its effect? OPP

¶20

Whether the suit of the plain t iff is within time? OPP

¶21

Whether the present Court h a s jurisdiction to try the suit? O P P

¶22

Relief.

¶23

Af t er hearing both the parties a n d perusing the whole record, the learned Trial C o urt vide its judgment dated 22.12.1998, dismissed the suit file d by the appellant. T he relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

¶24

“ Having heard the argumen t s and perusing record of the c ase ca r efully, I am of the view that this issue deserves to be deci d ed ag a inst the plaintiff. Admittedly, p laintiff is in service since the y ear 19 6 9. The plaintiff has filed prese n t suit only on 03.01.1996 clai m ing an n ual increments since the year 1971. The defendant in para 2 of wr i tten statement has specifically pleaded that 41 increments of the pl a intiff were stopped in 31 discip l inary proceedings and the plai n tiff ne v er challenged those orders. T h e plaintiff in corresponding pa r a 2 of his replication has not specifi c ally denied the aforesaid posi t ion an d there is total evasive denial i n this regard. The defendant has pr o duced on record orders Ex.D1 to Ex.D30 vide which, plaintiff w as de n ied annual increment from ti m e to time and the plaintiff has not ch a llenged those orders befor e any competent authority a nd th e refore, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed in the s uit. Pe r usal of orders Ex.D1 to D30 w ould show that most of the ti m es,

¶25

TRIPTI SAINI 2024.10.19 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

RSA-273-2001 - 4-

¶27

pl a intiff was found negligent in p e rforming his duties and author i ties to o k lenient view by only ordering the stoppage of annual increments. M o st of the times, plaintiff was fo und causing financial loss to the St a te Government by not issuing tickets to passengers travellin g in bu s . In view of the above, it is hel d that plaintiff is not entitled to a ny de c laration that action of defenda n t in stopping his annual increm e nts fro m time to time is either illegal or unconstitutional. Issue No. 1 is th u s, decided against plaintiff.” 6. Th e appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and decree d a ted 22.12.1998 wa s also dismissed by the lear n ed District Judge, Ambala v ide judgment dated 26.07.2000. Hence the present a ppeal.

¶28

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶29

Le a rned counsel for the appellan t contends that without appoin t ing any Enquiry O ff icer major penalty of stoppage of 41 increments has been imp o sed upon the appell a nt. He further contends that l e arned Trial Court did not take i nto consideration t h e very fact that before imposin g major penalty, show cause no t ice is required to b e given and the Enquiry Officer is to be appointed and on the b a sis of the enquiry r eport decision of major penalt y is to be taken. In support of his contentions he h as relied upon judgments of H o n’ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh) [1961 AIR (Supreme Court) 1070]; Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. The State of Punjab [1991 SCC (L&S( 998] and judgme n t of Madhya Pradesh High Cou r t in the case of S.L.Bhimte Vs. The Managing Director, M.P Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam [1993(3) S.C.T 603.

¶30

TRIPTI SAINI 2024.10.19 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

RSA-273-2001 - 5-

¶32

Pe r contra, learned counsel for the State contends that the stoppag e of 41 increments w as not a major penalty. He f u rther contends that in the Stat e of Haryana the ser v ices of the employees were go v erned by the Punjab Civil Serv i ces (Punishment an d Appeal) Rules, 1970 and wit h holding of increment of pay w a s a minor punishm e nt. He further contends that State of Haryana notified its o wn Rules i.e. The H aryana Civil Services (Punish m ent and Appeal) Rules, 1987. A nd punishment of w ithholding of increment of pa y with cumulative effect for the f irst time was broug h t under the heading “Major Pe n alties” vide amendment notifie d on 19.11.1992. In support of his contention, the learned State counsel has relied u p on the judgment of this Court passed in RSA-1588-1991 , titled as Ram Sarup Vs. Haryana State, decided on 03.10.2023

¶33

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

¶34

Th e statement of DW-1 Gian Cha n d, Clerk, HRO, Ambala shows t hat in his cross-ex a mination he has stated that appellant never wanted any enquir y to be conducted i n his case and he gave it in writing. A perusal of the record fur t her shows that the a ppellant was given many oppor t unities of being heard. 11. So far as the judgments cited by t h e learned counsel for the appel l ant are concerned, Jagdish Prasad Saxena’s case (supra) is the case under Art i cle 311(2), which i s not applicable to the facts a n d circumstances of the case of the appellant and cases of the Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) and S.L.Bhimte (supra) pertain to impo s ition of major penalty, which w ould also not be applicable in the case of the app e llant.

¶35

TRIPTI SAINI 2024.10.19 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

RSA-273-2001 - 6-

¶37

Th e judgment relied upon by t h e learned State counsel squa r ely covers the pres e nt case wherein the punishme n t of stoppage of three increm e nts with cumulativ e effect was granted and the re g ular second appeal was dismis s ed. Relevant parag r aphs of Ram Sarup’s case (supra) are being reproduced h ere

¶38

under:-

¶39

“5. The learned counsel represe n ting the appellant submits that the ju d gments passed by the Courts below are not sustainable as the sto p page of three increments w i th cumulative effect is a m a jor pu n ishment and the same could n o t be ordered in absence of reg u lar de p artmental inquiry. 6. On the other hand, the learn e d counsel representing the Stat e of Haryana submits that previously t he services of the employees w ere go v erned by the Punjab Civil S ervices (Punishment and App e al) Ru l es, 1970 and withholding o f increment of pay was a m i nor pu n ishment. He further contends that State of Haryana notifie d its ow n Rules i.e. The Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and App e al) Ru l es, 1987 and punishment of w ithholding of pay with cumulative eff e ct for the first time was br o ught under the heading “M a jor Pe n alties” vide amendment notifie d on 19.11.1992.

¶40

“2. In the Haryan a Civil Services (Punishment a nd Ap p eal) Rules, 1987, in rule 4, in s u b-rule (1)----

¶41

(i) Under Headin g “Minor Penalties”, for clause (v), the following clause s h all be substituted, namely:-

¶42

TRIPTI SAINI 2024.10.19 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

RSA-273-2001 - 7-

¶44

(v) withholding of increment of pay without cumulative effe c t”

¶45

(ii) Under heading “Major Penalties”, the follo w ing clause shall be insert e d, namely:-

¶46

(v-a) withholdi n g of increments of pay with

¶47

cumulative effe c t.”

¶48

7. Keeping in view the afo r esaid facts, the learned cou n sel re p resenting the appellant fairly s u bmits that at the relevant time, the rul e s of 1970 were applicable.

¶49

CONCLUSION

¶50

In v iew of the above punishment of stoppage of three increments w ith cumulative eff e ct was not major punishment before the year 1992, when the Haryana Civil S ervices (Punishment and Appe a l) Rules, 1987 were notified. A nd punishment of w ithholding of pay with cumu l ative effect for the first time w as brought, under the heading ‘Major Penalti e s’ vide amendment notified on 19.11.1992.