IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pronounced on: 13.01.2025 Bimla Sharma .... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner following service benefits; (i) increment under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Scale of Pay) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1980 Rules’) with effect from 02.04.1979, (ii) additional increment on account of promotion to the post of S.S. Mistress under Rule 4.4. (c) (i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume I) Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PCS Rules’), and (iii) refixation of pay with effect from 01.04.1985 under Rule 4.14 (2) of the PCS Rules, and all other consequential benefits.

2. Facts of the case in brief are:

2.1. The petitioner joined the respondent Department as a Junior Basic Training (JBT) Teacher on regular basis on 14.12.1961. She was promoted as S.S. Mistress on officiating basis vide order dated 28.01.1985, and superannuated from service as such on 31.07.1997. During service, she acquired higher qualification of B.A. Part-I on 13.06.1972. She, thereupon, approached this Court by filing CWP No.6187 of 1995 seeking higher pay scale of `220-400 on account of higher qualification. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the respondents vide order dated 02.04.1997, Annexure P-4, granted JST/Master’s grade to her in terms of the joint Punjab Government letter, dated 23.07.1957, with effect from 13.06.1972.

2.2. It has been averred that while granting JST grade vide the aforesaid office order, the petitioner’s pay was fixed without granting her the benefit of next increment on 02.04.1979, as admissible under Rule 7 of the

1980 Rules.

2.3. The claim for increment under Rule 7 is based upon specific averments in the petition that the pay of petitioner’s juniors, who were getting lower pay prior to 1979 as compared to the petitioner, as also that of the petitioner, was fixed at `660 in the revised pay scale of `525-1050 under the 1980 Rules. Therefore, the petitioner becomes entitled to next increment with effect from 02.04.1979. The averments to that effect contained in para 7 of the petition, which have not been denied by the respondents, are as under:

That some instances of the juniors of the petitioner are given as under:

Sr. No. Name Date of joining Date of conferring as J.B.T. pay scale of Rs. 220-400 having qualified B.A.I

1. Sh. Daya Nand 27.4.1968 24.9.1974 2. Smt. Indra Khatri 15.7.1969 30.6.1974 3. Zile Singh 1.5.1968 15.6.1974

4. Sh. Jai Pal Singh 10.12.1968 20.11.1974 5. Sh. Ram Kanwar 25.5.1968 20.11.1974 Sharma These juniors were getting pay at Rs.252/- prior to 1.4.1979 in pay scale of Rs.220-400, whereas the petitioner was granted pay at stage of Rs.260/- prior to 1.4.1979. All the aforesaid juniors as well as the petitioner were fixed at Rs.660/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.525-1050 under the Revised Pay Rules, 1980.

2.4. The petitioner’s second claim for grant of one increment on account of promotion as S.S. Mistress under Rule 4.4. (c) (i) of the PCS Rules is based on the premise that the promotional post entailed higher responsibilities as she was required to teach higher classes, i.e., class sixth to tenth. Accordingly, in terms of the law laid down in Veena Kumari v. State of Haryana, 2000(4) SCT 1038, she becomes entitled to the benefit.

2.5. Regarding the third claim of refixation of pay under Rule 4.14 (2) of the PCS Rules, it was stated that in terms thereof the petitioner was entitled to grant of annual increment on 01.04.1985 as the same was advantageous to her, and also the consequent refixation of pay. Had she continued working as JBT Teacher in the th