Gopal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jan 2025CWP/9025/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gopal Singh v. State of Punjab; CWP-9025-2019 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; Aman Chaudhary, J.; pay protection; pay scale protection; cut-off date 01.01.1996; employees in service on 1.1.1996; Punjab Civil Service (Revised Pay)(First Amendment) Rules, 1998; retrospective pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.1996; Senior Clerk; Junior Assistant; quashing of order dated 24.11.2016; Annexure P5; Anil Kumar CWP-22422-2010; LPA No.1729 of 2012; Kulbir Kaur CWP-530-2004; Bhakra Beas Management Board; ACP scheme; disposed of in terms of Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Present petition disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Anil Kumar (supra). ¶¶39

Gopal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Present petition disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Anil Kumar (supra).

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, being in service on 01.01.1996, are entitled to protection of their pay scale, warranting quashing of the order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P5).

¶¶15

Court's answer

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.4, despite their best efforts, were unable to controvert the factual position, draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments, or cite any contrary law.

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Anil Kumar (supra).

¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-9025-2019 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided orally on 08.01.2025 by Aman Chaudhary, J. — Gopal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others. Prayer to quash an order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P5) and to protect the pay scale of the petitioners, they being in service on 01.01.1996. Relying on the Single Judge decision in Anil Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP-22422-2010, decided 16.05.2012) and its affirmation by the Division Bench in State of Punjab and others v. Anil Kumar and others (LPA No.1729 of 2012, decided 05.02.2014) — under which employees working as Senior Clerks/Junior Assistants as on the cut-off date 1.1.1996 are entitled to pay protection under the Punjab Civil Service (Revised Pay)(First Amendment) Rules, 1998 (deemed effective w.e.f. 1.1.1996), with arrears restricted to 38 months prior to filing of the writ petition — and noting that a batch of petitions led by Kulbir Kaur v. Bhakra Beas Management Board (CWP-530-2004) had likewise been allowed, the court disposed of the present petition in terms of the Division Bench judgment in Anil Kumar (supra), State counsel and counsel for respondent No.4 having been unable to controvert the factual position, draw out any distinctive aspects, or cite any contrary law.

¶1

¶2

CWP-9025-2 0 19 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

228

¶4

CWP-9025-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.01.2025

¶5

Gopal Singh a n d others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punja b and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶11

********* Present: M r. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for th e petitioners. M r. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AA G , Punjab.

¶12

M s. Deepika Bagri, Advocate for M r. Anupam Singla, Advocate fo r respondent No.4.

¶13

¶14

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

¶15

P r ayer made in the present pet i tion for quashing of the orde r dated 24.11.2 0 16 (Annexure P5) and directin g the respondents to protect th e pay scale of t h e petitioners, they being in serv i ce on 01.01.1996. 2. R eliance is placed on the judg m ent passed in the case of Anil Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-22422-2010 , decided on 16 . 05.2012, which read thus:-

¶16

“The dispute raised in the petition is whether th e petitioners are entitled to p r otection of the pay they wer e drawing on 1.1.96 or not. A dmittedly the petitioners wer e promoted as Junior Assistan t s on 1.1.96. On 19.5.1998 th e Punjab Civil Service (Revise d Pay)(First Amendment) Rules , 1998 were promulgated whi c h were deemed to have com e into force w.e.f. 1.1.96. As p er these rules the pay scale fo r the post of Clerks and Junior Assistants was revised and i t was mentioned as follows:-

¶17

“The designation and the rev i sed equivalent of the unrevise d pay scale of officials worki n g as Senior Clerk and Junio r

¶18

ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

¶20

CWP-9025-2 0 19 (O&M)

¶21

Assistant,as on 1st January, 1996, shall be protected as a measure personal to them.”

¶22

The short grievance of t h e petitioners is that since the y were in office on 1.1.96 they were also entitled to have thei r pay protected. In the writte n statement it is sought to b e argued that pay protection w o uld in fact, be available to thos e who were placed as such pri o r to 1.1.96. In my opinion th e clear meaning of the rule would not lend itself to thi s interpretation. Once the petit i oners were in office on 1.1.9 6 they would be entitled to the benefit granted to them by th e Government.

¶23

It is thus declared that the petitioners would be entitled t o the protection of their pay i n terms of the stipulation by th e Government extracted above.

¶24

The second prayer made i n the petition is for the grant o f ACP scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioners states tha t with the decision on the first point having come in favour o f the petitioners he would not press this scheme at this stag e but would be satisfied if the p etitioners are permitted to mak e a representation in this regar d which should be considered b y respondent No.3 within any r easonable time. Learned Addl . AG has no objection to this c o urse of action being followed. Resultantly with regard to the second claim the petitioner s are permitted to make a s e lf contained representation t o respondent No.3 who shall pass a speaking order thereo n within a period of three mont h s.

¶25

The petition is allowed to t h is limited extent. ”

¶26

The aforesaid judgment was tak e n up in intra Court appeal i.e .

¶27

LPA No.1729 of 2012 titled as State of Punjab and others vs. Anil Kumar

¶28

and others, d e cided on 05.02.2014, relevant o f which read thus:-

¶29

“Contention of counsel f o r the State that pay protectio n would be available to those , who were in service prior t o 1.1.1996 was rightly rejected . Before us also, an attempt ha s been made to say that as the R ules has come into operation o n 1.1.1996, pay protection wil l be granted only to those wh o were in service prior thereto. It is further stated that as th e private respondents have en t ered into service on 1.1.1996 , they were not entitled to pay p rotection as prayed by them. We are not inclined to acc e pt that the above said argumen t which already stood rightly rejected by the learned Singl e Judge. Reading of notificatio n dated 19.5.1988 makes it ver y

¶30

ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

¶32

CWP-9025-2 0 19 (O&M)

¶33

clear that the higher pa y scales were granted wit h retrospective effect i.e. from 1 .1.1996. It is specifically state d that the Rules notified on the a bove said date shall be deeme d to have come into force on and w.e.f. 1.1.1996. At end o f notification dated 19.5.1988, which has been reproduced i n earlier part of judgment, it i s also stated that pay shall b e protected of those officials who were working as Senio r Clerks and Junior Assistan t s as on 1.1.1996. Combine d reading of the provisions of t he notification dated 19.5.198 8 (Annexure P3) makes it v e ry clear that intention of th e authorities was to give highe r pay scale and protection of pa y etc. to those employees who were in service on the cut of f date i.e. 1.1.1996 and not on l y to those who were in servic e prior thereto.

¶34

As the private responden t s approached this Court afte r lapse of long time, they can n ot be granted benefit from th e date when the notification c ame into effect i.e. 1.1.1996 . Their right to fixation of notional pay and arrears shall b e restricted to 38 months prior to the date of filing of the wri t petition. To the above, no objection has been raised b y counsel for the private respon d ents.

¶35

No case is made out to ca u se interference by this Court i n the present appeal.

¶36

Dismissed.”

¶37

F u rther, batch of petitions with lead case i.e. CWP-530-200 4 titled as Kulbir Kaur vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board and others, were also all o wed by relying upon the ju d gment passed in Anil Kumar (supra).

¶38

Learned State counsel as also l earned counsel for responden t No.4 despite their best efforts has been u n able to controvert the factua l position and d r aw out any distinctive aspects i n the aforementioned judgment s or cite any co n trary law.

¶39

I n wake of the above, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgme n t passed by the Division Bench in Anil Kumar (supra).

¶40

		(A MAN C JU	HAUDHARY) DGE
08.01.2025
ashok
	W hether speaking/reasoned	: Yes	/ No
	W hether reportable	: Yes	/ No

¶41

ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gopal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sushmita Nahar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Nanu Ram Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kuldip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Dr Gagandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.