IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.854 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 16.11.2009
O.P. Gupta.
-----Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana.
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present:- Mr. R.L. Batta, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Gita Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
---
ORDER:
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of
learned Single Judge, partly allowing the writ petition to the extent
of directing grant of revised pay scale of Rs.18750-22850 w.e.f.
1.11.1997 for the period of his working as President of District
Consumer Forum and also to give benefit of enhanced leave
encashment along with arrears for the period of his judicial
service prior to re-employment as President of District Consumer
Forum. Claim for revised pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and increase in
pension and gratuity and leave encashment period by counting
service on reemployment was rejected.
LPA No.854 of 2009 2
2. Undisputed facts are that the appellant retired as
District Judge in 1995 and was reemployed as President of
District Consumer Forum for five years as per terms of
appointment mentioned in order dated 18.10.1995, Annexure R-1.
3. The appellant claimed that on his reemployment, he
should be treated at par with other officers in Govt. service
including pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and revised pension,
gratuity and leave encashment by counting period of
reemployment and in any case, he could not be denied pay scale
given to directly appointed Presidents of District Fora w.e.f.
1.11.1997.
4. Learned Single Judge upheld claim for higher pay
scale w.e.f. 1.11.1997 on principle of equal pay for equal work but
rejected claim for being treated equal to other serving officers for
revised pay scale and for counting reemployment service,
following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S. Chawla
and others v. State of Punjab and another AIR 2001 SC 1706.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
6. It was submitted that notwithstanding his retirement
and terms of reemployment, the appellant was entitled to revised
pay scale and counting service on reemployment for purposes of
gratuity, pension etc.
6. We do not find any merit in this contention. The
appellant had retired from service in the year 1995. He could not,
LPA No.854 of 2009 3
thus, seek parity with the employees who were in service in the
year 1996 and were governed by revised pay scale.
7. In M.S. Chawla (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that appointment of a District Judge as President of District
Consumer Forum is a case of reemployment and his pension had
to be fixed as per rules, on the basis of pension payable to a
retired District Judge. In view of the said judgment, learned
Single Judge rightly held that the re-employment service could
not be counted for pension, gratuity or leave encashment.
9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
November 16, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH )
ashwani JUDGE