Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Ravinder Singh Nandal & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP- 2799-2017
Decided On : 04-04-2022
Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, ; for the Petitioners.; Mr. Narender Singh Behgal, Aag, Haryana.
Unilateral retrospective amendment of employment terms and conditions to the disadvantage of the employee is impermissible.
Headnote:
Retrospective Amendment - Terms and Conditions of Appointment - 26.09.2013 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were engaged as Agriculture Development Officers based on specific terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter dated 26.09.2013. The respondents later passed an order on 27.04.2015 retrospectively amending the terms and conditions, leading to a reduction in the financial remuneration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the retrospective amendment of the terms and conditions was not permissible and set aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2015. The court also directed the respondents to calculate the arrears and release the petitioners' complete salaries as per the original terms and conditions within two months.
Issues: 1. Validity of the retrospective amendment of the terms and conditions of appointment. 2. Entitlement of the petitioners to their complete salaries as per the original terms and conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: Unilateral change in the terms and conditions to the disadvantage of the employee is not permissible. Once the petitioners have worked on the terms and conditions prescribed by the respondents, the respondents are under obligation to honor those terms and conditions and cannot unilaterally change them retrospectively.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 27.04.2015 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to calculate the arrears and release the petitioners' complete salaries as per the original terms and conditions within two months.
JUDGMENT
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) - The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure P-9), passed by respondent No.2, vide which the condition No.4 of the order dated 26.09.2013, by which the petitioners were engaged as the Agricultural Development Officers, has been modified with regard to the grant of emoluments.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.l and 2 retired as Block Agriculture Officers from the Department of Agriculture, State of Haryana, on 31.05.2013 and 28.02.2011, respectively. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-Department issued an advertisement on 14.06.2013 for re-engagement of the retired Block Agriculture Officers in the Department of Agriculture as Agriculture Development Officer (Soil Conservation). As both the petitioners were eligible for the said post, keeping in view the eligibility conditions mentioned in the said advertisement, therefore, they applied for the said postand underwent the selection process and were ultimately recommended vide order dated 26.09.2013 to be engaged as Agriculture Development Officers (Soil Conservation) for a period of twelve months on the terms and conditions mentioned therein or till the regular candidates join.
3. A bare perusal of Clause No.4 of the terms and conditions of the letter dated 26.09.2013, on the basis of which the petitioners were appointed, shows that the remunerations shall be calculated as per the Government rules, i.e. the difference between the last pay drawn (Basic Pay+D.A.) and the amount of monthly pension. The said condition being acceptable to the petitioners, they joined the service keeping in view the terms and conditions offered as per the letter dated 26.09.2013. After expiry of one year, the petitioners were granted extension for a period of six months on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the letter dated 26.09.2013. As there was no change in the said terms and conditions, the petitioners accepted their extensions of service and further discharged their duties for another six months. After the period of six months came to an end, again vide order dated 29.05.2015, the petitioners were granted six months extension on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the offer of appointment dated 26.09.2013. Thereafter, the petitioners continued working as such. Ultimately, keeping in view the extensions being granted to them on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the offer of appointment dated 26.09.2013, the tenure of petitioner No. 1 and 2 came to an end on 30.11.2015 and 30.07.2016, respectively.
4. Before the tenure of service of the petitioners ended, the respondents passed an order dated 27.04.2015, amending the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment dated 26.09.2013 retrospectively,thereby reducing the financial remuneration, which the candidates were to get on monthly basis.
5. Though the order was passed on 25.02.2015 but was endorsed on 27.04.2015, which is as under:-
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HARYANA ORDER
Condition No. 4 of engagement order of Agriculture Development Officer (SC), Issued by Director General of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula order endst. No. 5982 6012/E-II (1) , dated 26-09-2013 &No. 6125-2/VE-11(1), dated 07-10-2013 is hereby modified as under:
"The amount of remuneration shall be calculated as wages 50% of initial pay (pay + grade pay+D.A.) of fresh entrant and regular employee after 01 - 01 - 2Or or on the Iwages fixed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner under Minimum wages Act, whichever is higher."
The above remuneration of the engaged Agriculture Development Officer (SC) will be drawn from the object head-69 Contractual Service.
Dated: 25-02-2015 Ramesh Krishan, I.A.S.
Director General of Agriculture, Haryana.
Endst. No. 1885 Estt.ll(l), Dated: 27/4/2015
A copy is forwarded to Additional Director (SC), Haryana, Panchkula for information. You are further requested to make arrangement of funds in object h
