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

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
STATE OF HARYANA – Appellant
Versus
RAJINDER PARSHAD TANEJA – Respondent
RSA 1309/2010



REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1309 OF 2010

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.1309 of 2010

DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 25, 2011

State of Haryana & others

.... Appellants

Versus

Dr. Rajinder Parshad Taneja

.... Respondent

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Amit Goel, AAG, Haryana, for the appellants.

Mr. D. R. Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

* * * *

L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

This is second appeal by defendants (State of Haryana and its

officers).

Respondent-Dr.Rajinder Parshad Taneja was serving as Medical

Officer under the defendants. He was appointed to the said post on

16.01.1975 and he was made regular on 21.01.1980. He retired from service

on 31.03.2002. Pay scales of Medical Officers were revised by the defendants

w.e.f. 01.05.1989. Revised entry pay scale was Rs.2,200-4,000 plus NPA.

After five years of regular service, the scale was Rs.3,000-4,500 plus NPA.

Selection grade was of Rs.4,100-5,300 plus NPA after 12 years of regular

service. Accordingly, plaintiff was given scale of Rs.3,000-4,500 w.e.f.

01.05.1989 as he had already completed 5 years of regular service. He was

also granted selection grade of Rs.4,100-5,300 w.e.f. 21.01.1992 on

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1309 OF 2010

-2-

completion of 12 years of service. However, subsequently vide instructions

dated 18.05.1997, the selection grade was restricted to 20% of the cadre posts

and, therefore, selection grade of the plaintiff was withdrawn.

On further revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, entry level

functional scale of the Medical Officers was Rs.8,000-13,500. After 5 years of

regular satisfactory service, the scale was Rs.10,000-13900 and after 11 years

of regular satisfactory service, selection grade of Rs. 12,000-16,500 restricted

to 20% of the cadre posts was to be given. The plaintiff's pay was fixed in the

pay scale of 10,000-13,900 as on 01.01.1996 as he had already completed 5

years regular service and even in pre-revised scales, he had been given scale of

Rs.3,000-4,500. The plaintiff claimed benefit of scale of Rs.12000-16500

w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as he had completed 12 years' service prior to it and he also

fell within 20% of the cadre posts. He was also granted the said scale.

However, the plaintiff at the time of promotion vide order dated 09.09.1998

made application dated 28.09.1998 to forego the promotion. Defendants

thereafter fixed the pay of the plaintiff in pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500 w.e.f.

01.01.1996 and ordered recovery of Rs.94,244/- being the difference of pay

w.e.f. 09.09.1998 (since when the plaintiff had foregone the promotion).

Making these averments, the plaintiff challenged the aforesaid action of the

defendants and sought scale of Rs.12,000-16500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 along with

all arrears and also sought refund of amount of Rs.94,244/- recovery whereof

had been ordered/effected from him.

The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded

that the plaintiff became dis-entitled to the Assured Career Progression (ACP)

scales since 09.09.1998 the date when the plaintiff applied to forego the

promotion and, therefore, his pay has been rightly fixed in pay scale of

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1309 OF 2010

-3-

Rs.8000-13500 and recovery of excess amount already paid, has been rightly

ordered. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind vide

judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 partly decreed the plaintiff's suit,

holding that he is entitled to refund of Rs.94,244 (which has been deducted

from his retiral benefits) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

recovery till realization. Both parties preferred first appeals against judgment

and decree of the trial court. Learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide

common judgment dated 20.07.2009 modified the judgment and decree of the

trial court, holding the plaintiff to be entitled

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