Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SATYEN VAIDYA, J
LEKH RAJ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Respondent
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) 4777 OF 2019|CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) 4737 OF 2019|CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) 4918 OF 2019|CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) 4691 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. DILIP SHARMA, MR. TEJASVI DOGRA, MANISH SHARMA
For the Respondents: MR. R.P. SINGH, MR. NARENDER THAKUR
Vested rights in employment cannot be revoked retrospectively without violating constitutional guarantees of equality and fair play.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Petitioners, employees of police department, challenged the abolition of Senior Clerks' designation and reduction of pay - Petitioners had vested rights under Revised Pay Rules, 1998, later withdrawn - Court held the amendments had retrospective operation, violating petitioners’ rights. (Paras 20-24)
(B) Service Jurisprudence - Employee rights - Vested rights cannot be taken away retrospectively - Court affirmed need for fair play and adherence to rights bestowed by existing rules. (Paras 20-24)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were initially engaged as Clerks but later designated as Senior Clerks and Junior Assistants, their pay scales were reviewed under various notifications between 1996 and 2005. Petitioners challenged the amendments resulting in reduction of their designations and pay.
Findings of Court:
Court affirmed that petitioners had acquired vested rights which could not be revoked retrospectively, ruling the actions of the respondents as discriminatory based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether petitioners had acquired vested rights and if respondents could take them away retrospectively.
Ratio Decidendi: The amendments infringing vested rights violate constitutional provisions and are arbitrary.
Result: Petitions allowed; impugned notifications quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notifications regarding designation changes and pay scales. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. grievances concerning abolition of designations and reductions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. petitioners were wrongfully reverted from their designations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. employees have vested rights that must be protected. (Para 20 , 21 , 23) |
| 5. court quashes notifications depriving rights. (Para 25) |
JUDGEMENT
All these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as identical questions of facts and law are involved.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of these petitions are that all the petitioners are employees of police department of the State. They belong to ministerial staff and were initially engaged as Clerks. In the context of matter in issue, it will suffice to notice the posts respectively held by the petitioners as on 01.01.1996. Petitioners in CWPOA No. 4777 of 2019 and CWPOA No. 4737 of 2019 were holding posts of Clerks as on 01.01.1996, whereas petitioners in CWPOA Nos. 4691 and 4918 of 2019 were holding posts of Senior Clerks as on the said date.
3. Respondents-State had notified Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Clerk (Class-III Non- Gazetted) in the department of police on 14.02.1997. In the cadre of Clerks, three separate categories were carved. First being in the pay-scale of 950-1800 (basic entry scale with initial start of Rs.1000/-) for Clerks, second being in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2130 for Senior Clerks on their designation after completion of minimum five years as Clerk and third being in the pay-scale of Rs.1500-2700 on their designation as Junior Assistant after putting 10 years of service as Clerks and Senior Clerks taken together.
4. Vide notification dated 20.01.1998, Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 were notified. These rules were made operative from 01.01.1996. On the date of notification of these rules, petitioners in CWPOA No. 4777 of 2019 and CWPOA No. 4737 of 2019 had already been designated as Senior Clerks, whereas petitioners in CWPOA No. 4691 of 2019 and CWPOA No. 4918 of 2019 had been designated as Junior Assistants as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules noted above. Petitioners were accordingly getting the pay scales admissible against their respective designation. As per the schedule annexed to Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998, pay scale of Senior Clerks i.e. 1200-2130 was revised to Rs.4020-6200 and the pay scale of Junior Assistants i.e. 1500-2700 was revised to 5000-8100. Since these rules were made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996, petitioners became entitled to the revised scales from the respective dates on which the petitioners were designated as Senior Clerks or Junior Assistants, as the case may be. Petitioners started getting the revised pay scales accordingly.
5. Respondents issued a subsequent notification dated 01.09.1998, whereby the posts with designation of Senior Clerks was abolished w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the revised pay scales of Junior Assistant was reduced from Rs.5000-8100 to Rs. 4400-7000. The cadre of Clerk was demarcated as Clerks and Junior Assistants in the ratio of 50:50. Respondents issued yet another notification dated 31.05.2001 whereby the provision of promotion from Clerks to Junior Assistants was done away with and instead it was provided that the posts of Junior Assistants would be filled up only by way of placement.
6. On 03.11.2001, a clarification was issued to the effect that the designation and the revised equivalent of the un-revised pay scale of officials working as Senior Clerk and Junior Assistant as on 01.01.1996 shall be protected as a measure personal to them. The protection was, however, limited to the extent of excess payment made to Junior Assistants upto 01.09.1998 only. For Senior Clerks this protection was not made available.
7. On 07.06.2005, an order was issued by respondents whereby the pay scale of 4020-6200 granted to the Senior Cler
