IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

228 CWP-9025-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.01.2025 Gopal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present: Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Deepika Bagri, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.4.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing of the order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P5) and directing the respondents to protect the pay scale of the petitioners, they being in service on 01.01.1996.

2. Reliance is placed on the judgment 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:-

“The dispute raised in the petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to protection of the pay they were drawing on 1.1.96 or not. Admittedly the petitioners were promoted as Junior Assistants on 1.1.96. On 19.5.1998 the Punjab Civil Service (Revised Pay)(First Amendment) Rules, 1998 were promulgated which were deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 1.1.96. As per these rules the pay scale for the post of Clerks and Junior Assistants was revised and it was mentioned as follows:-

“The designation and the revised equivalent of the unrevised pay scale of officials working as Senior Clerk and Junior Assistant,as on 1st January, 1996, shall be protected as a measure personal to them.”

The short grievance of the petitioners is that since they were in office on 1.1.96 they were also entitled to have their pay protected. In the written statement it is sought to be argued that pay protection would in fact, be available to those who were placed as such prior to 1.1.96. In my opinion the clear meaning of the rule would not lend itself to this interpretation. Once the petitioners were in office on 1.1.96 they would be entitled to the benefit granted to them by the Government.

It is thus declared that the petitioners would be entitled to the protection of their pay in terms of the stipulation by the Government extracted above.

The second prayer made in the petition is for the grant of ACP scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that with the decision on the first point having come in favour of the petitioners he would not press this scheme at this stage but would be satisfied if the petitioners are permitted to make a representation in this regard which should be considered by respondent No.3 within any reasonable time. Learned Addl.

AG has no objection to this course of action being followed. Resultantly with regard to the second claim the petitioners are permitted to make a self contained representation to respondent No.3 who shall pass a speaking order thereon within a period of three months.

The petition is allowed to this limited extent. ”

3. The aforesaid judgment was taken up in intra Court appeal i.e. LPA No.1729 of 2012 titled as State of Punjab and others vs. Anil Kumar and others, decided on 05.02.2014, relevant of which read thus:-

“Contention of counsel for the State that pay protection would be available to those, who were in service prior to 1.1.1996 was rightly rejected. Before us also, an attempt has been made to say that as the Rules has come into operation on 1.1.1996, pay protection will be granted only to those who were in service prior thereto. It is further stated that as the private respondents have entered into service on 1.1.1996, they were not entitled to pay protection as prayed by them. We are not inclined to accept that the above said argument which already stood rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. Reading of notification dated 19.5.1988 makes it very clear that the higher pay scales were granted with retrospective effect i.e. from 1.1.1996. It is specifically stated that the Rules notified on the above said date shall be deemed to have come into force on and w.e.f. 1.1.1996. At end of