IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (211) CWP No. 6900 of 2021 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 24.01.2025 Chand Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Punjab and Haryana High Court At Chandigarh and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the respondents.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner is for the grant of pay in the pay ₹ ₹ ₹

scale of 10300 - 34800 + Grade Pay of 3200 which was admissible to the post of Stenographer Grade-III, has been declined by modifying the appointment order of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner competed for the post of Stenographer Grade-III and was ultimately selected and granted the appointment dated 11.05.2012 on ad-hoc basis in the Session ₹

Division of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar in the pay scale of 10300 -

₹ ₹

34800 + Grade Pay of 3200 + DA with the clear condition that the petitioner will be given the minimum of the pay scale along with Dearness Allowances. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in a totally illegal and arbitrary manner, the said appointment order was substituted by the respondents vide appointment order dated 02.12.2013 ₹ ₹

(Annexure R-3) to change the pay scale of 10300 - 34800 + Grade Pay of ₹ ₹ ₹ ₹

3200 + DA to 5910 - 20200 + Grade Pay of 2800 + DA. Learned counsel also submits that on the date when the selection was made and appointment was ordered, the post of Stenographer Grade-III had already ₹ ₹ ₹

been granted the higher pay scale of 10300 - 34800 + Grade Pay of 3200 w.e.f. 01.12.2011 onward, despite of the same the petitioner was granted lower pay scale, hence, on the date of the selection and appointment, the ₹

petitioner was entitled for the minimum of the Grade Pay i.e. 10300 -

₹ ₹ ₹ ₹

34800 + Grade Pay of 3200 + DA instead of 5910 - 20200 + Grade Pay ₹

of 2800 + DA.

3. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply, wherein, they have stated that though, initially the appointment was given to ₹ ₹ ₹

the petitioner in the pay scale of 10300 - 34800 + Grade Pay of 3200 but, ₹ ₹

the same was modified immediately to the pay scale of 5910 - 20200 +

₹

Grade Pay of 2800, which was admissible to the regular Stenographers as on 01.01.2012. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there is no challenge to the modification of the appointment order and, ₹ ₹

therefore, the claim to get the minimum of the pay scale as 10300 - 34800 ₹ ₹ ₹ ₹

+ Grade Pay of 3200 instead of 5910 - 20200 + Grade Pay of 2800 along with DA may kindly be rejected.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. Once, it is a conceded position that on the date i.e. 11.05.2012 when the petitioner was selected on the post of Stenographer Grade-III, the ₹ ₹ ₹

pay scale of the said post was 10300 - 34800 + Grade Pay of 3200, which was also granted to the petitioner, the revision of the appointment order so as ₹ ₹ ₹

to grant the un-revised pay scale of 5910 - 20200 + Grade Pay of 2800 was arbitrary and illegal and without any valid justification. Even if, the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013 titled as State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others, decided on 26.10.2016, the petitioner is entitled for the minimum of the pay scale of the post against which the petitioner is working and the regular employees are being granted the pay. It is a conceded fact that as on 01.12.2013, the regular ₹

Stenographers Grade-III were getting the pay in the pay scale of 10300 -

₹ ₹

34800 + Grade Pay of 3200 + DA.

6. That being so, the initial grant of the said pay scale to the petitioner offered appointment, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-2, was perfe