Mehar Chand Goyal Vs State of Punjab and Others

¶1

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶2

CWP No.922 of 2015

¶3

2025:PHHC: 003156

¶4

09.11.2006 (P-13) passed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the pe��oner;

¶5

c) writ direc�ng the respondent N: 4 to implement the office order dated 09.11.2006 (P-13), whereby pe��oner was allowed benefit of proficiency step up a*er coun�ng his past service w.e.f. 13.12.1978 rendered by the respondent N: 5 as allowed in the case of Sh. K.L. Jhamb and also grant the pe��oner all consequen�al benefits i.e. refixa�on of his pay, arrears of salary and release of revised re�rement benefits together with interest @ 18 % per annum;

¶6

d) writ in the nature of mandamus direc�ng the respondents to grant the pe��oner payment of employer share of CPF @ 10% together with interest on the arrears of revised pay scale plus DA in terms of revised pay-fixa�on vide order dated 11.11.2009 (P-27) paid in installments upto 22.11.2013.

¶7

Admi:ed facts are that pe��oner joined as a Clerk in Board of School Educa�on, Haryana on 23.05.1970, where he was promoted to the post of Assistant on 13.12.1978. A*er applying through proper channel, he was selected to the post of Assistant in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, and was issued appointment le:er dated 27.08.1982 in the pay grade of 570 - 1,080. Pe��oner was relieved by the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana on 14.09.1982 (A.N.) and he joined with Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board on 15.09.1982 (F.N.), with no break in service.

¶8

According to pe��oner, one Mr. K.L. Jhamb, an employee of Chandigarh Administra�on was sent on deputa�on and subsequently he was allowed absorp�on in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board vide Government Memo dated 21.08.1981 by trea�ng him as fresh entrant in the Board. He was allowed benefit of pay fixa�on and proficiency step up by coun�ng his service rendered with the Chandigarh Administra�on in terms of the Punjab Govt. memo No.7/14/88-5PP(1)((2269)/18527 dated 01.12.1988.

¶9

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶10

Page 2 of 10

¶11

CWP No.922 of 2015

¶12

2025:PHHC: 003156

¶13

Pe��oner made a similar request for gran�ng him the benefit of pay protec�on by coun�ng his previous service rendered in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana. He filed Civil Suit No.395 of 1989 before the Courts at Chandigarh, but the same was dismissed on 31.08.1992. The appeal preferred by him and the further regular second appeal No.2161 of 1997 filed by him before this Court were dismissed. Even the review applica�on filed in RSA No.2161 of 1997 was also dismissed by this Court on 11.03.1999.

¶14

According to pe��oner, he made a fresh representa�on to the respondents, who sought advice of the Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, Punjab vide office memo dated 06.08.2002. The Department clarified to the Assistant Controller, Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board that the case of the pe��oner regarding pay protec�on was similar to Sh. K.L. Jhamb because the basis for grant of benefit to both the employees was iden�cal and therefore, directed to take appropriate steps to grant the benefit of pay protec�on to the pe��oner. Consequent to this order, the pe��oner was granted the benefit of pay protec�on vide office order No.529 dated 27.08.2003 by coun�ng his previous service rendered in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana. Pe��oner later on requested respondent No.4 for gran�ng him benefit of proficiency step up/ACP benefit as allowed to Sh. K.L. Jhamb. As per pe��oner, his claim was accepted and order No.901 dated 21.11.2006 was issued, whereby pe��oner was allowed the benefit of proficiency step up on comple�on of 08 years’ service w.e.f. 13.12.1986 by raising his pay from 1,800/- to 1,840/- and benefit of ACP on comple�on of 16 years of service w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by raising his pay from 6,600/- to 6,800/-.

¶15

However, the above said order dated 21.11.2006 was not given effect to. The pe��oner was allowed to re�re from service on 30.04.2007 upon a:aining the age of superannua�on. Therea*er, pe��oner made repeated representa�ons for implementa�on of the order dated 09.11.2006/ 21.11.2006. He further requested for coun�ng of his previous service rendered in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana towards qualifying service for grant of gratuity and also for grant of leave encashment, but to no

¶16

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶17

Page 3 of 10

¶18

CWP No.922 of 2015

¶19

2025:PHHC: 003156

¶20

effect. On the basis of representa�ons and repeated reminders sent by the pe��oner, impugned order dated 07.01.2013 was passed, whereby the claim of the pe��oner for coun�ng his service rendered in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana towards proficiency step up was declined without assigning any reason. Pe��oner made a detailed representa�on before respondent No.2 clarifying each and every posi�on vis-a-vis Sh. K.L. Jhamb, but the same was also rejected by respondent No.4 on 20.11.2013.

¶21

It is contended by the pe��oner that above-said impugned orders passed by the respondents in not gran�ng him the benefit of gratuity and leave encashment by coun�ng his previous service in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana and rejec�ng his claim towards proficiency step up, increments/ACP benefits are patently illegal, arbitrary and malafide and also viola�ve of the decision taken by competent authority, i.e. Managing Director of the Board vide order dated 09.11.2006 (Annexure P-13) and also in terms of Rule 2.3 & 2.7 of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Service Regula�ons), 1982. Pe��oner further claims parity for grant of the benefit of pay fixa�on of his previous service rendered in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana, via-a-vis Sh. K.L. Jhamb, who was also given similar benefit by coun�ng his previous service rendered in the Chandigarh Administra�on.

¶22

As per the short reply filed on behalf of respondent No.5 - Haryana Board of School Educa�on, a*er his selec�on with the Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Punjab, Chandigarh, the pe��oner had resigned and he was relieved from the du�es on 14.09.1982 and thus, he severed his rela�ons with respondent No.5 and as such, he has no cause of ac�on against the said respondent.

¶23

9.1 In the separate reply filed by respondent No.3, it is not disputed that pe��oner had earlier worked from 23.05.1970 to 14.09.1982 as Clerk/ Assistant in the Board of School of Educa�on, Haryana but it is submi:ed that as per the terms and condi�ons of the appointment le:er dated 27.08.1982, his appointment in the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board,

¶24

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶25

Page 4 of 10

¶26

CWP No.922 of 2015

¶27

2025:PHHC: 003156

¶28

Chandigarh was treated as fresh appointment, as it did not contain any condi�on regarding grant of any benefit a*er coun�ng previous service rendered by the pe��oner in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana. It is submi:ed further that there is no reciprocal arrangement between the State of Punjab and the State of Haryana for con�nuing the previous service of the employees and therefore, the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chandigarh-respondent No.4 has rightly not taken into account the previous service rendered in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana for the purpose of qualifying service for grant of gratuity and leave encashment to the pe��oner. Pe��oner has not even made any reference of Rules/ instruc�ons, under which he is seeking such type of benefits.

¶29

9.2 This respondent has further referred about the previous li�ga�on, inasmuch as the civil suit filed by the pe��oner for seeking the same benefits was dismissed and that judgment was upheld up to this Court in the RSA decided on 11.03.1999. It is also submi:ed that case of the pe��oner is not iden�cal to Sh. K.L. Jhamb, inasmuch as Sh. K.L. Jhamb had joined Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board on deputa�on and was later on absorbed in the said Board in the public interest, whereas the pe��oner had joined the said Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board as fresh, as nothing was men�oned in his appointment le:er.

¶30

9.3 It is further the stand of the respondent that as regards the payment of gratuity for the period of 20 years, 03 months and 13 days, the qualifying service of the pe��oner for DCRG works out to be less than 20 years and 03 months a*er deduc�ng the period of non-qualifying service, i.e. extra ordinary leave. As the period of extra ordinary leave is not to be considered qualifying service in this case under Punjab Civil Services Rules, therefore, the total qualifying service was worked to be 20 years only. By jus�fying the impugned orders, prayer is accordingly made for dismissal of the pe��on.

¶31

In separate reply filed by respondent No.4, almost the same stand has been taken and it is specifically men�oned that pe��oner had

¶32

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶33

Page 5 of 10

¶34

CWP No.922 of 2015

¶35

2025:PHHC: 003156

¶36

earlier filed a civil suit on the same cause of ac�on, which was dismissed and it has a:ained finality as per the orders passed by this Court and that the order of this Court was not challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court by the pe��oner and as such, the filing of the present pe��on is wholly misconceived and misuse of the process of law and hit by the principles of res judicata. This respondent has also submi:ed that the case of the pe��oner via-a-via Sh. K.L. Jhamb is not similar because earlier to his appointment in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sh. K.L. Jhamb was working in the Chandigarh Administra�on and that pay scale of the State of Punjab and Chandigarh Administra�on are similar/same, whereas in the case of pe��oner, he was drawing lower pay scale in School Educa�on Board, Haryana and thus, there is no similarity in the two cases. Even otherwise, Sh. K.L. Jhamb has not been impleaded in the array of par�es either in the civil suit filed by the plain�ff, which was dismissed nor in the present writ pe��on.

¶37

Respondent Nos.1 and 2, apart from taking the same stand as taken by the other respondents, also added that as per Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, it talks only of the past service rendered for the State of Punjab and no protec�on/benefits of past service of State of Haryana or other government body can be granted to the pe��oner or like employees. Accordingly, prayer is made for dismissal of the pe��on.

¶38

In the replica�ons filed to the respec�ve replies of the respondents, pe��oner reiterated his stand.

¶39

This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have apprised the record carefully.

¶40

As per own case of the pe��oner, a*er Sh. K.L. Jhamb, an employee of the Chandigarh Administra�on, sent on deputa�on and subsequently allowed absorp�on in the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, was allowed the benefit of pay fixa�on and proficiency step up by con�nuing his service rendered in Chandigarh Administra�on, the pe��oner had made a similar request for gran�ng him the benefit of pay protec�on by

¶41

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶42

Page 6 of 10

¶43

CWP No.922 of 2015

¶44

2025:PHHC: 003156

¶45

coun�ng his previous service rendered in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana and filed a civil suit in November, 1989 before the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh but the same was dismissed on 31.08.1992. It is further the case of the pe��oner that the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Addi�onal District Judge, Chandigarh on 21.03.1997; and then RSA No.2161 of 1997 was dismissed by this Court on 27.11.1997 and even the review applica�on in this RSA was dismissed on 11.03.1999.

¶46

It will be relevant to reproduce the order dated 27.11.1997 passed by this Court, whereby RSA No.2161 of 1997 filed by the pe��oner was dismissed. It reads as under:-

¶47

“This is unsuccessful plain�ffs regular second appeal. Plain�ff filed a suit for declara�on to the effect that he is en�tled to fixa�on of his pay at Rs.700/- plus Rs. 34/- personal pay in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 w.e.f 1509-1982 as Assistant with the defendant on the basis of last pay drawn while working with the Board of School Educa�on Haryana, with a further prayer that defendant be directed to pay all the arrears and the consequen�al benefits. It is the case of the plain�ff that he worked as Assistant: with the Board of School Educa�on Haryana from 23-5-1970 to 14-09-1982. Subsequently, plain�ff applied for the post of Assistant with the defendant and was selected. According to the stand set up by the plain�ff, he was given an impression/understanding that his last pay drawn will be protected. He, however, did not make any grievance for some �me and when representa�on in this regard was made, the same was rejected thus leading to the filling of the present case.

¶48

Defendant contested the suit sta�ng that the plain�ff is being paid as per terms of his appointment. Defendant specifically denied that any such impression/understanding was given to the plain�ff that his pay shall be protected.

¶49

Both the courts on the basis of evidence has come to the conclusion that since the plain�ff joined on his own and there being no s�pula�on in the appointment le:er the relief now claimed is without any legal jus�fica�on. The claim of the plain�ff has thus been declined.

¶50

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶51

Page 7 of 10

¶52

CWP No.922 of 2015

¶53

2025:PHHC: 003156

¶54

Before me, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant-plain�ff has been discriminated as pay of some other employees, namely, Sarv Sh. Viney Kumar, K.L.Zham and Smt. Sudesh Kumari, has been protected. Thus ac�on of the respondent being viola�ve of provisions of Ar�cle 14 of the Cons�tu�on of India, the appeal deserves to be accepted.

¶55

Having heard learned counsel for a while, I am of the view that the appeal being wholly devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. Concededly, the appellant joined on his own with the defendant as an Assistant. It is also the conceded posi�on that in the appointment le:er. there was no such s�pula�on that earlier pay of plain�ff shall remain protected. This per se falsifies the stand set up by the plain�ff. How and in what manner the benefit of protec�on of pay has been granted to certain persons was specifically not in issue, yet the defendant on his own had explained the same. This hardly supports the conten�on of the plain�ff. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.”

¶56

The review applica�on No.17-C of 1998 in the aforesaid RSA was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.03.1999 by passing the following order: -

¶57

“For the reasons men�oned in the applica�on, we condone the delay in filling the review applica�on.

¶58

We have heard learned counsel for the par�es on merits of the case and find no merit whatsoever in this review applica�on. All that has been urged before us is that the pe��oner has been discriminated inasmuch as persons equally situated were given a be:er treatment when their pay was protected. One such example given is that of Mr.K.L. Jhamb. Learned counsel represen�ng the respondent has explained that so far as Mr. Jhamb is concerned, he was not directly appointed to the post as was the case of the plain�ff- applicant. Mr. Jhamb was ini�ally taken on deputa�on and therea*er was absorbed. We find no merit in the only conten�on raised by the learned counsel. The review applica�on is dismissed with costs which are quan�fied as Rs. 1000/-.”

¶59

It is clear from the aforesaid orders that it was observed by this Court that the appointment of the pe��oner with the Water Supply and

¶60

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶61

Page 8 of 10

¶62

CWP No.922 of 2015

¶63

2025:PHHC: 003156

¶64

Sewerage Board was fresh. There was no s�pula�on that earlier pay of the pe��oner was to be protected and as such, the stand set up by him was falsified. Simply because benefit of protec�on of pay had been granted to certain other persons was not in issue before the Court, despite which defendant had explained the same but that hardly supported the conten�on of the pe��oner. In the review order dated 11.03.1999, this Court also clarified that as per the stand of respondents, Sh. K.L. Jhamb was not directly appointed to the post as was the case of the pe��oner. Sh. Jhamb was ini�ally taken on deputa�on and later on absorbed and as such, the case of the pe��oner was not on similar foo�ng as that of Sh. K.L. Jhamb.

¶65

A*er the passing of the aforesaid order dated 27.11.1997 in RSA No.2161 of 1997; and order dated 11.03.1999 in review applica�on No.17-C of 1998, in case the order dated 21.11.2006 (Annexure P-13) has been passed by the Manager, Personnel and General Administra�on of the respondent, gran�ng him the benefit of proficiency step up w.e.f. 13.12.1986 on comple�on of 08 years of service and ACP w.e.f 01.01.1996 on comple�on of 16 years of service, these orders are clearly in the teeth of the judicial orders passed by this Court in RSA and the review applica�on and therefore, pe��oner cannot be allowed any benefit of the said order dated 21.11.2006, as has been prayed by him.

¶66

The appointment le:er dated 27.08.1982 (Annexure P-2) clearly reveals that pe��oner was stated as a fresh appointee, as this le:er did not contain any condi�on regarding grant of any benefit a*er coun�ng previous service rendered by the pe��oner in the Board of School Educa�on, Haryana. Pe��oner could also not point out any reciprocal arrangement between the State of Haryana and Punjab for coun�ng the previous service of employees. Moreover, when Sh. K.L. Jhamb was absorbed from the U.T. Cadre by respondent No.4, the pay scales of the State of Punjab and Chandigarh were same, as is pointed out by the counsel for the respondents; whereas the pay scale of the State of Haryana were different.

¶67

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶68

Page 9 of 10

¶69

CWP No.922 of 2015

¶70

2025:PHHC: 003156

¶71

As is evident from Annexure P-13, pe��oner was promoted as Assistant in the pay scale of �525 - �1,080; whereas before the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the fresh appointment of the pe��oner was in the pay scale of �570 - �1,080. In these circumstances, pe��oner cannot claim his case to be on parity with Sh. K.L. Jhamb. Even otherwise, the case of Sh. K.L. Jhamb was on different foo�ng, inasmuch as he was ini�ally taken on deputa�on from the Chandigarh Administra�on and later on absorbed by the respondent-Board. These facts have already been no�ced by the Division Bench of this Court in RSA, which was filed by the pe��oner pursuant to the dismissal of his suit and first appeal; and the conten�on was rejected.

¶72

Consequent to the en�re discussion as above, this Court does not find any merit in the present pe��on. Same is accordingly hereby dismissed.

¶73

January 13, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Sarita JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No

¶74

Sarita Rani 2025.01.13 16:04 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶75

Page 10 of 10

Mehar Chand Goyal v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehar Chand Goyal v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Bangar Vs State of Punjab

Laljit Singh @ Lali Vs State of Punjab

Laljit Singh Alias Lali Vs State of Punjab

Manjit Singh Vs Punjab Mandi Board

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

Davinder Saini Vs State of Punjab