SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURDAS RAM EC. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB.ETC. – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 Date of decision: 05.03.2025 Gurdas Ram and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Harkirat Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Balwinder Singh, AAG Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated

29.07.1999 whereby pay-scale of the petitioners has been reduced from Rs.810-1440/- to Rs. 770-1350/-.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners were working as ‘Beldars’ since 1980 at Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpurkandi, the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. The petitioners were paid the pay-scale, as applicable to the Beldars. He submits that due to certain anomalies in the pay-scales, the 3rd Pay Commission recommended rationalization of the posts and fresh pay-scales were recommended. Vide communication No.14222-24/6RSDA/96 dated 14.05.1996 (Annexure P-2) the pay-scales of Rs.810-1440/- was given to the petitioners by the Chief Engineer/RSDC, Irrigation Works, Punjab. The operative part thereof reads thus:-

“xxxxx Subject: Implementation of Chapter-26-Skilled & Semi skilled.

The Beldars who are working in the Shops/field of R.S.D.

Project drawing pay in the scale of Rs. 750-1350/- with initial start of Rs. 770/- having knowledge of trade concerned and are helping the technicians particularly in Shops and also in the field shall be promoted as Helper in the pay scale of Rs. 810- 1440/- on the basis of performance for a minimum period of two years in a particular technical activity on recommendation's from the Xen/Field and approved by the concerned Superintending Engineers.

The workmen skilled/semi skilled working in the trade concerned, drawing pay in the scale of Rs. 930-1800 with initial start of Rs. 1000/- and who have been designated as Jr. Technicians by the Xen/Field with 5 years or more experience including that in Semi-Govt./Govt. as on 1.1.1986 or from the date of completion of 5 years service on RSD-Project shall also be placed in the scale of Rs. 1200-2100 as Technicians Grade- III at par with I.T.I. qualified trade workmen in their respective trades.

This has the concurrence of F& CAO/RSD Project conveyed vide his U.O. No. 248, dated 9.5.96.

xxxxx”

He submits that consequent upon the aforesaid communication, the pay-scale of the petitioners was recommended by the Executive Engineer and the same was duly approved by the Superintendent Engineer and accordingly, the petitioners were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.810-1440/- vide letter No.9224-28/13EG dated 24.09.1996 and the same was released to them. Necessary entries were carried out in the service book and arrears w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to 30.01.1997 were also paid. However, instead of use of the expression “Promoted”, the expression “re-designate” was used in the order. Appropriate instructions were thereafter issued vide letter dated 13.03.1997 directing that the ‘Beldars’ have been promoted in the pay-scale of Rs.810-1440/- instead of just placing them in the said pay-scale and the instructions were made effective from 01.01.1996 to 13.03.1996. However, vide letter dated 18.03.1997, the respondents withdrew the above instructions issued vide their letter dated 13.03.1997 and further instructed that the implementation of Chapter 26 of the 3rd Pay Commission as granted to the petitioners would not be effective from 01.01.1986 up to the date of regularization i.e. 13.03.1996 as specified in the letter dated 13.03.1997 but will be reckoned from the date of issuing of instructions i.e. 14.05.1996 (Annexure P-2) and subject to the availability of the posts as per the seniority. Hence, in essence the stand of the respondents was that Chapter 26 of the 3rd Pay Commission would only apply to the petitioners after regularization and would not apply to the work charged period of service and therefore, the petitione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top