{"id":129950,"date":"2009-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-24T22:47:47","modified_gmt":"2018-02-24T17:17:47","slug":"rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 31 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 31 January, 2009<\/div>\n
CWP No.12029 of 1998                  1\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                           CWP No. 12029 of 1998\n                                           Date of decision: 31.1.2009\n\nRajbir Singh and others\n                                                   ....Petitioners.\n\n                          vs.\n\nHaryana State Electricity Board and others\n                                               ..Respondents\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.\n            HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.\n            HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.\n\n                              ---\nPresent     Mr.R.C.Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners.\n\n            Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General Haryana, with\n            Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for HSEB.\n\n            Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate, with\n            Mr.Vishal Malik,Advocate,for the added respondents.\n\n                          --\n\nJ.S.KHEHAR,J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.           There are 12 petitioners in this case. All the petitioners were<\/p>\n
inducted in the service of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as “the HSEB”) from September 1986 to October 1988, as<\/p>\n
Assistant Linemen. At the time of their appointment all the petitioners<\/p>\n
possessed the qualification of matriculation, as well as, two years certificate<\/p>\n
course of ITI\/Polytechnic. Petitioner No.11 Rajbir Singh is stated to have<\/p>\n
died during the pendency of the instant writ petition, whereas, the remaining<\/p>\n
petitioners are stated to be continuing in the service of the HSEB.<\/p>\n
2.          It would also be pertinent to notice, that as a result of the<\/p>\n
issuance of a notification bearing No.S.O.106\/H.A.10\/98\/S\/23,24,25\/98,
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 14.8.1998, the HSEB went through a constitutional change. As a<\/p>\n
result thereof, the petitioners came to be allocated to the Uttar Haryana Bijli<\/p>\n
Vitran Nigam ( hereinafter referred to as “the UHBVN”).<\/p>\n
3.          At the time of appointment of the petitioners         as Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen, they were placed in the unrevised pay scale of Rs.350-600, with a<\/p>\n
selection grade of Rs.400-700 for 20% of the posts. Consequent upon the<\/p>\n
revision of the pay scales introduced in the HSEB through Circular No.1<\/p>\n
( Revision of Pay Scales)-Office Order No.384\/Finance, dated 19.8.1987 the<\/p>\n
pay scale of Assistant Linemen was revised to Rs.800-1150. The pay<\/p>\n
scales of Assistant Linemen was again revised to Rs.825-1300 with effect<\/p>\n
from 1.1.1986 through Circular No.391 (Revision of Pay Scales)-Office<\/p>\n
Order No. 391\/Finance, dated 2.11.1987.\n<\/p>\n
4.          Assistant Linemen working in the HSEB\/UHBVN were<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the fact that they had been placed in the pay scale of Rs.825-<\/p>\n
1300 with effect from 1.1.1986. They accordingly made representations to<\/p>\n
the authorities through their Unions\/Associations\/Federations including the<\/p>\n
HSEB Technical Employees Union. So as to examine the representations<\/p>\n
made by various sections of the employees of the HSEB\/UHBVN, a<\/p>\n
Committee was constituted, through an office order dated 19.1.1989. It is<\/p>\n
the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid Committee found merit in the<\/p>\n
claims raised on behalf of the Assistant Linemen, and accordingly,<\/p>\n
recommended that the pay scale of Assistant Linemen be modified from<\/p>\n
Rs.825-1320 to Rs.1200-2040, with effect from 1.5.1990. It is pointed out<\/p>\n
that the aforesaid recommendation was implemented           for the cadre of<\/p>\n
Assistant Linemen through Circular No.66 (Revision of Pay Scales)-Office<\/p>\n
Order No.511\/Finance dated 7.2.1991 (Annexure-P3).
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
5.           Although the cadre of Assistant Linemen was granted the pay<\/p>\n
scale of Rs.1200-2040 in consonance with the demand made by Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen (including the petitioners), the grievance raised by the petitioners<\/p>\n
through the instant writ petition is, that the aforesaid scale of pay should<\/p>\n
have been released to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1986 as per their<\/p>\n
claim, and not prospectively with effect from 1.5.1990. It is the claim of the<\/p>\n
petitioners that the HSEB\/UHBVN had impliedly acknowledged that the<\/p>\n
pay scale of Rs.825-1300 released to Assistant Linemen                    was<\/p>\n
anomalous\/defective, by accepting that they were entitled to the scale of<\/p>\n
Rs.1200-2040. According to the petitioners, an anomaly\/defect is liable to<\/p>\n
be corrected\/rectified with effect from the date when the anomaly\/defect<\/p>\n
had arisen. Otherwise, according to the petitioners, the petitioners will be<\/p>\n
deemed to have been paid salary for the period from 1.1.1986 to 1.5.1990<\/p>\n
under an incorrect\/defective pay scale. It is also the case of the petitioners<\/p>\n
that it is a settled proposition of law that an anomaly has to be removed<\/p>\n
from the date it had arisen, rather than, from any subsequent date<\/p>\n
prospectively. The demand of the petitioners, therefore is, that they should<\/p>\n
be released the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from<\/p>\n
1.1.1986.\n<\/p>\n
6.           The instant petition along with 22 other connected civil writ<\/p>\n
petitions were allowed     by a Division Bench of this Court through a<\/p>\n
common order dated 29.1.1999. While allowing the instant writ petition,<\/p>\n
the Division Bench based its decision      on a number of considerations,<\/p>\n
details whereof have been summarised by us as under:-<\/p>\n
            Firstly, reliance was placed on an earlier decision rendered by<\/p>\n
            this Court in Shyam Sunder and others v. Haryana State
\n CWP No.12029 of<\/span><\/a> 1998                  4<\/p>\n
          Electricity Board and others (CWP No. 13360 of 1996, decided<\/p>\n
          on 22.9.1997) wherein, the same claim relating to the cadre of<\/p>\n
          Assistant Linemen had been adjudicated upon by this Court, and<\/p>\n
          wherein the plea that “…Once the claim of the pay parity has<\/p>\n
          been granted to the petitioners, there is no reason to assign<\/p>\n
          different dates for its effect. The Revised pay scale should be<\/p>\n
          given from the same date for its effect. The revised pay scale<\/p>\n
          should be given from the same date, as in the case of other<\/p>\n
          categories of employees. The petitioners’ contention is that the<\/p>\n
          revised pay scale given from May 1, 1990 instead of January 1,<\/p>\n
          1986 is the result of discrimination and arbitrariness…” was<\/p>\n
          accepted by this Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Secondly, the Division Bench while disposing of the instant writ<\/p>\n
          petition also placed reliance on the fact, that a petition for Special<\/p>\n
          Leave to Appeal, filed against the judgment rendered by this<\/p>\n
          Court in Shyam Sunder’s case (supra), had been dismissed by the<\/p>\n
          Supreme Court on 9.2.1998.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Thirdly, this Court while disposing of the instant writ petition on<\/p>\n
          29.1.1999 had recorded a categoric finding to the effect that the<\/p>\n
          judgment rendered by this Court in Shyam Sunder’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
          had been implemented by the HSEB\/UHBVN, and as such, the<\/p>\n
          same relief which was allowed by the respondents to others<\/p>\n
          similarly situated as the petitioners herein, should be granted to<\/p>\n
          the petitioners as well.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Fourthly, it was noticed that a Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
          Jai Parkash and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP
\n CWP No.12029 of<\/span><\/a> 1998                  5<\/p>\n
           No.1804 of 1996, decided on 20.4.1997) had adjudicated upon<\/p>\n
           an identical claim, as had been raised by the petitioners in the<\/p>\n
           instant case in respect of the cadre of Assistant Linemen, for the<\/p>\n
           cadre of Pump Operators\/Electricians wherein this Court had<\/p>\n
           granted     the employees of the aforesaid cadres the revised pay<\/p>\n
           scales    with effect from 1.1.1986, instead of       1.5.1990, in<\/p>\n
           consonance with the action of the State of Haryana.<\/p>\n
           And; Fifthly, the Division Bench while allowing the instant writ<\/p>\n
           petition had found that the plea of             arbitrariness and<\/p>\n
           discrimination raised on behalf of the petitioners had not been<\/p>\n
           assailed by the respondents, as nothing at all had been pointed<\/p>\n
           out to show why the modified scale suggested by the Committee<\/p>\n
           was not made applicable from 1.5.1990, and that, an imaginary<\/p>\n
           date was made applicable for the grant of the enhanced scale.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Accordingly, the instant writ petition came to be disposed of in the same<\/p>\n
terms as the judgment rendered in Jai Parkash’s case (supra).<\/p>\n
7.           Dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court on 29.1.1999,<\/p>\n
the respondents approached the Apex Court, challenging the order passed<\/p>\n
by the Division Bench       in the instant Civil Writ Petition, as also the<\/p>\n
connected Civil Writ Petitions. While setting aside the order passed by this<\/p>\n
Court on 29.1.1999, the Apex Court in its order dated 8.10.2002, inter alia,<\/p>\n
noticed:\n<\/p>\n
             ” We deem it proper to set aside the order of the High Court
\n             and remit the matter back to the High Court for determining the
\n             issue raised on merits afresh and if necessary differ with the
\n             earlier view in Shyam Sunder’s case. Needless to say if there is
\n             such difference of opinion, the High Court would have to refer
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
             the issue to a larger Bench for a resolution of such conflict. It
\n             is also advisable in the light of the fact that such a large
\n             number of employees are involved and such a vast number of
\n             cases have been filed that all the matters are tagged together,
\n             but the appeal may be heard and disposed of treating the
\n             present Writ Petition which is the subject matter of the present
\n             appeal namely, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Rajbir
\n             Singh & Ors,<\/a> as the main case
\n                    As it has been stated by the learned counsel appearing
\n             for the respondents that the Writ Petition may need amendment
\n             since the Writ Petition had been filed solely on the basis of
\n             Shyam Sunder’s case decision, the respondents will be at liberty
\n             to file further pleadings before the High Court, as they may be
\n             advised and the High Court may deem fit. There will be no
\n             order as to costs”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In furtherance of the directions issued by the Apex Court, the matter came<\/p>\n
up for consideration for the first time before this Court on 5.12.2007. The<\/p>\n
Division Bench before which the instant writ petition came up for<\/p>\n
consideration required the same to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief<\/p>\n
Justice for constitution of a Full Bench. It is, therefore, that the instant Full<\/p>\n
Bench came to be constituted.\n<\/p>\n
8.           To propound the proposition,        that an anomaly has to be<\/p>\n
redressed retrospectively i.e., with effect from the date when the anomaly<\/p>\n
had arisen, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the<\/p>\n
decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court in Ram Murti and<\/p>\n
others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.15920 of<\/a> 1995, decided on<\/p>\n
13.2.1996), Jai Parkash and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP<\/p>\n
No.1804 of<\/a> 1994, decided on 24.4.1997),Shyam Sunder and others v.<\/p>\n
Haryana State Electricity Board and<\/a> another (CWP No.13360 of 1996,
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
decided on 22.9.1997), Papinder Vir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and<\/p>\n
others (CWP No. 9122 of 1999, decided on 11.1.2000), Rajbir Singh and<\/p>\n
others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.16789 of<\/a> 1997, decided on<\/p>\n
20.2.2001),    Gujjar Singh and others v. The Chairman, PRTC, Patiala<\/p>\n
( CWP No.1667 of 1998, decided on 13.7.2005) and Krishan Lal and others<\/p>\n
v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and<\/a> another) ( CWP<\/p>\n
No.6706\/CAT\/2005, decided on 23.4.2008). It is not necessary for us to<\/p>\n
examine sequentially all the judgments relied upon for     the proposition of<\/p>\n
law enunciated therein. Suffice it to state, that we have painstakingly gone<\/p>\n
through the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners,<\/p>\n
and have arrived at the conclusion, that in none of the judgments on which<\/p>\n
the reliance has been placed, the proposition of law canvassed by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, that in cases of rectification of<\/p>\n
an anomaly, arising during revision of pay scales, the anomaly has to be<\/p>\n
corrected with effect from the date the anomaly had arisen, has been<\/p>\n
propounded.\n<\/p>\n
9.            Irrespective of our aforesaid determination (on a perusal of the<\/p>\n
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners), we have<\/p>\n
no hesitation to uphold the submission advanced by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioners, so as to conclude, that in case of an anomaly, which had<\/p>\n
arisen during the revision of pay scales, the correction thereof, to be with<\/p>\n
effect from the date when the anomaly had arisen. In other words, if a pay<\/p>\n
scale wherein the anomaly had arisen was released from 1.1.1986, it is<\/p>\n
bound to be corrected from 1.1.1986, and not with effect from the date<\/p>\n
when the anomaly was discovered, or prospectively with effect from a date<\/p>\n
of the choice of the employer. Even the learned counsel for the respondents
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
acknowledges the correctness of the aforesaid proposition. The basis of our<\/p>\n
conclusion recorded hereinabove arises out of a simple premise. Once it is<\/p>\n
acknowledged that a mistake has been committed, whereby an anomaly has<\/p>\n
arisen, the mistake has to be remedied in such a manner, that the aggrieved<\/p>\n
party does not have any adverse effect of the mistake\/anomaly. This would<\/p>\n
be possible if an anomaly in pay scales is corrected retrospectively with<\/p>\n
effect from the date when the anomalous pay scale was introduced. On the<\/p>\n
other hand, if the mistake\/anomaly is corrected from a future date, the<\/p>\n
concerned individual will have to suffer the effect of the anomaly, from the<\/p>\n
date it had arisen, till the date it was remedied. The latter determination<\/p>\n
would be iniquitous and unacceptable in law as it would not be able to<\/p>\n
stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which postulates<\/p>\n
equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.<\/p>\n
10.         Learned counsel for the respondents, however,       in order to<\/p>\n
repudiate the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, vehemently contends, that it is incorrect to assume that there<\/p>\n
was any anomaly in the pay scale of cadre of Assistant Linemen , when the<\/p>\n
pay scale of Assistant Linemen was revised from Rs.825-1300 to Rs.1200-<\/p>\n
2040. It is also the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents, that the petitioners had failed to establish that the Committee<\/p>\n
constituted by the HSEB\/UHBVN to examine the grievances of the cadre<\/p>\n
of Linemen had     recorded any finding to the effect that there was an<\/p>\n
anomaly in the pay scale of Assistant Lineman determined at Rs.825-1300<\/p>\n
with effect from 1.1.1986. It is, therefore, the vehement contention of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents, that the petitioners were themselves<\/p>\n
under a mistaken belief, and      accordingly had projected their mistaken
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
belief to this Court, that the Committee had in any manner concluded that<\/p>\n
the pay scale released to Assistant Lineman fixed at Rs.825-1300 with effect<\/p>\n
from 1.1.1986, was anomalous. It is also the pointed contention of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents, that the recommendation made by the<\/p>\n
Committee constituted on 19.1.1989 was not on the basis of an anomaly in<\/p>\n
the pay scale of Rs.825-1300, but on consideration of independent issues<\/p>\n
canvassed on behalf of the cadre of Assistant Linemen.<\/p>\n
11.              In the background of the submission advanced by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents, it is imperative for us, in the first instance, to<\/p>\n
determine whether or not the Committee constituted on 19.1.1989 by the<\/p>\n
HSEB\/UHBVN, was constituted only for the purpose of                  examining<\/p>\n
anomalies in pay scales revised by the HSEB with effect from 1.1.1986, or<\/p>\n
whether it was also required to examine allied issues pertaining to pay<\/p>\n
scales (even in the absence of any anomaly). If the answer to the aforesaid<\/p>\n
is, that the Committee was constituted to examine allied issues in respect<\/p>\n
of    pay scales besides anomalies, then to determine              whether the<\/p>\n
enhancement of the pay scale of Rs.825-1300 earlier released to Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen, to Rs.1200-2040, was as a result of the correction\/rectification of<\/p>\n
a mistake\/anomaly, or for a reason independent thereof. We shall thereafter<\/p>\n
be in an effective position to deal with the proposition canvassed by the<\/p>\n
rival parties.\n<\/p>\n
12.              In order to determine the issue(s) pointed out in the preceding<\/p>\n
paragraph, learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to<\/p>\n
a compilation of documents handed over to us (in furtherance of an order<\/p>\n
passed by the Division Bench on 5.12.2007), and which, were taken on the<\/p>\n
record of this case by us as Annexure-A. In the first instance our attention
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
was invited to Office Order No.437\/Finance dated 19.1.1989, vide which<\/p>\n
the Committee under reference was constituted. Relevant extract of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid Office Order is being reproduced hereunder:-<\/p>\n
            “The Haryana State Electricity Board is pleased to constitute a
\n            Committee comprising of the following Officers to examine all
\n            the      anomalies   and        pending      demands    of    various
\n            Unions\/Associations\/individuals in respect of Pay Scales
\n            revised w.e.f.1.1.1986 including grant of Time Bound             Pay
\n            Scales:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            1. Chairman HSEB,                  Chairman of the Commttee\n            2. Member Finance,\n            Accounts & Commercial              Member\n            HSEB\n            3. Member Technical (OP),          Member\n                HSEB.\n            4. Secretary Board                 Member Secretary\n            5. C.E.Commercial,HSEB             Invitee\n            6. FA\/Hqrs. HSEB                   Invitee\n                xx       xx              xx              xx\".\n\n<\/pre>\n
According to the learned counsel for the respondents a perusal, of the Office<\/p>\n
Order (extracted above) by which the Committee was constituted (which<\/p>\n
eventually recommended the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 for the cadre of<\/p>\n
Assistant Linemen with effect from 1.5.1990) clearly reveals, that the<\/p>\n
Committee was constituted for examining, firstly, “anomalies” of pay<\/p>\n
scales,   and     secondly,   “pending      demands”      of    various   Unions\/<\/p>\n
Associations\/individuals, in respect of pay scales. According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents, it is clear, that the Committee which made the<\/p>\n
recommendation that Assistant Linemen, should be allowed the pay scale<\/p>\n
of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 1.5.1990, was required to look into
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
matters pertaining to “anomalies”, as well as, “pending demands” in respect<\/p>\n
of pay scales. It is, therefore, submitted that it would be incorrect to infer<\/p>\n
that the Committee under reference was constituted only to examine<\/p>\n
anomalies in pay scales (while implementing the revised pay scales).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
13.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission<\/p>\n
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. We are fully satisfied<\/p>\n
that the Committee constituted on 19.1.1989 was not only required to<\/p>\n
examine “anomalies” in the revised pay scales, released to the employees of<\/p>\n
the HSEB\/UHBVN with effect from 1.1.1986, but was also required to<\/p>\n
make       recommendations         on       “pending       demands”        of<\/p>\n
unions\/associations\/individuals in respect of pay scales.       It would be<\/p>\n
pertinent to notice, that the    learned counsel for the petitioners while<\/p>\n
responding to the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents, did<\/p>\n
not assail the correctness of the submission advanced on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondents. In view of the above, the first query posed in paragraph 11<\/p>\n
above, has been answered in a manner which will require us also to decide<\/p>\n
the second query posed therein.      In the following paragraph, we have<\/p>\n
considered the submission of the learned counsel, on the second query.<\/p>\n
14.           Learned counsel for the respondents while assisting us on the<\/p>\n
second query, in the first instance, invited our attention to Circular No.1<\/p>\n
(Revision of Pay Scales)-Office Order No.384\/Finance dated 19.8.1987,<\/p>\n
whereby the pay scale of Assistant Linemen was revised from Rs.350-600<\/p>\n
to 800-1150 with effect from 1.1.1986. Learned counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
then invited our attention to circular No.391 (Revision of Pay Scales)-Office<\/p>\n
Order No.391\/Finance dated 2.11.1987 whereby the pay scale of Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen which had been fixed at Rs.800-1150 with effect from 1.1.1986,
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
was again revised to Rs.825-1300 with effect from 1.1.1986. It is the<\/p>\n
vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that an<\/p>\n
anomaly had indeed been found in the pay scale of Assistant Linemen when<\/p>\n
their pay scale was revised to Rs.800-1150, and that, the same was<\/p>\n
corrected\/rectified by allowing Assistant Linemen the pay scale of Rs.825-<\/p>\n
1300 with effect from 1.1.1986. It is the submission of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondents, that since an anomaly had been detected in the revised<\/p>\n
pay scale (Rs.825-1300), it was liable to be corrected\/rectified with effect<\/p>\n
from the date when the anomaly had arisen. As such, after the aforesaid<\/p>\n
anomaly\/mistake was identified, the pay scale of Rs.825-1300, was released<\/p>\n
to Assistant Linemen with effect from 1.1.1986 i.e., the date with effect<\/p>\n
from which the mistake\/anomaly had occurred. According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents, the HSEB\/UHBVN, was mindful of the<\/p>\n
proposition of law, that an anomaly had to be corrected with effect from the<\/p>\n
date of its occurrence, and as such, had unilaterally released the pay scale of<\/p>\n
Rs.825-1300 to Assistant Linemen with effect from 1.1.1986, after<\/p>\n
identifying the anomaly.\n<\/p>\n
15.         In contra distinction to the factual position noticed in the<\/p>\n
foregoing paragraph, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents, that the Committee under reference, while recommending the<\/p>\n
pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 to Assistant Linemen with effect from 1.5.1990<\/p>\n
had done so not because of an existing “anomaly” but on the basis of a<\/p>\n
representation made by the      employees Unions\/Associations\/Federations<\/p>\n
including the HSEB Technical Employees Union on behalf of Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen, claiming the pay scale released to a category of employees holding<\/p>\n
“Technical Posts” under the State of Haryana. In this behalf, learned
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                        13<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents has invited our pointed attention to the<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 7.2.1991 (Annexure P3), relevant portion whereof is<\/p>\n
being extracted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
====================================================<\/p>\n
       “Sr.No. Name of Post Existing Pay Modified Scale Remarks
\n                                  Scale w.e.f.        w.e.f.1.5.90
\n                                  1.1.86\n<\/p>\n
       ———————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
       1.         2.                  3.                    4.                  5.\n<\/p>\n
       ———————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
       2. Technical posts for
\n           which minimum
\n          qualification
\n          prescribed is
\n          Matric with I.T.I
\n          Certificate\/Polytechnic\n<\/p>\n
     (i) xx               xx                        xx                  xx\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) A.L.M.              825-1300            1200-2040 Recruitment to
\n                                                                    Non-Matric be
\n                                                                    stopped\n<\/p>\n
    (iii) to (x)          xx                        xx               xx”.\n<\/p>\n
It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that<\/p>\n
the State Government had clubbed                 a number of posts under the head<\/p>\n
“Technical Posts”, and had granted all the posts clubbed together as<\/p>\n
“Technical Posts”, the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. It is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
State of Haryana had clubbed together as “Technical Posts” such posts for<\/p>\n
which the prescribed educational qualifications for direct recruitment were,<\/p>\n
Matriculation with certificate in ITI\/Polytechnic. It is the submission of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents that Matriculation was not one of the<\/p>\n
qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Lineman at the time of<\/p>\n
revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986, and as such, Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen employed with the HSEB\/UHBVN could not have been granted<\/p>\n
the benefit of pay which was ordered to be released to “Technical Posts”<\/p>\n
by the State of Haryana. According to the learned counsel for the
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents before the pay scale released to “Technical Posts” could be<\/p>\n
extended to Assistant Linemen employed under the HSEB\/UHBVN, parity<\/p>\n
in the qualifications for recruitment was a pre-requisite condition. As such,<\/p>\n
when the     Committee under reference made its recommendations on<\/p>\n
7.2.1991 (Annexure P3), it expressly incorporated the condition, that further<\/p>\n
recruitment of non-matriculate candidates for appointment         as Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen would be stopped. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents, that the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040, was<\/p>\n
released to the cadre of Assistant Linemen not as a matter of rectification of<\/p>\n
an anomaly, but as a consequence of          revising the qualifications for<\/p>\n
recruitment to the cadre of Assistant Linemen, so as to bring it at par with<\/p>\n
“Technical Posts” under the State of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
16.          We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions<\/p>\n
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, as have been noticed<\/p>\n
hereinabove. The aforesaid submissions have emerged from documents<\/p>\n
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. The genuineness of<\/p>\n
the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, is not<\/p>\n
a matter of dispute at the hands of the petitioners. In fact, during the course<\/p>\n
of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners did not advance any<\/p>\n
submission whatsoever in respect of the issue dealt with in the preceding<\/p>\n
paragraph.   Having perused the documents relied upon by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents,we have no hesitation              whatsoever in<\/p>\n
concluding, that when the pay scale of Assistant Linemen was revised<\/p>\n
from Rs.350-600 (with the selection grade of Rs.400-700 for 20% of the<\/p>\n
posts) to Rs.800-1150, the respondents accepted to modify the revised pay<\/p>\n
scale of Rs.800-1150 to Rs.825-1300 with effect from 1.1.1986, as a
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
consequence of the identification of an anomaly in the pay scale of Rs.800-<\/p>\n
1150. However,      the representations made by the cadre of Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen through their Unions\/Associations\/Federations including the<\/p>\n
HSEB Technical Employees Union, against the pay scale of Rs.825-1300,<\/p>\n
were accepted by the Committee constituted by the HSEB\/UHBVN, so as to<\/p>\n
give the benefit granted by the State of Haryana to “Technical Posts” under<\/p>\n
the State Government.       If the    posts of Assistant Linemen in the<\/p>\n
HSEB\/UHBVN could have been equated with “Technical Posts”, as on<\/p>\n
1.1.1986, there may have been some substance in the submission made by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the petitioners. We have, however, no hesitation in<\/p>\n
concluding, that the posts of Assistant Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN could<\/p>\n
not be treated to fall in the category of “Technical Posts” as on 1.1.1986.<\/p>\n
This conclusion of ours is based on the fact, that the State Government had<\/p>\n
classified only such posts as “Technical Posts” wherein, the educational<\/p>\n
qualifications for appointment by way of direct recruitment was<\/p>\n
Matriculation with certificate in ITI\/Polytechnic. The posts of Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN did not postulate              the qualification of<\/p>\n
Matriculation as a pre-condition by way of direct recruitment for the posts<\/p>\n
of Assistant Linemen, as on 1.1.1986 i.e., the date with effect from which<\/p>\n
the petitioners are presently seeking the revision. As such, it is not possible<\/p>\n
for us to conclude, that the cadre          of Assistant Linemen       in the<\/p>\n
HSEB\/UHBVN could claim to fall within the posts clubbed together as<\/p>\n
“Technical Posts”, or could claim parity with “Technical Posts” under the<\/p>\n
State of Haryana, as on 1.1.1986.\n<\/p>\n
17.         The impugned order dated 7.2.1991 which allowed the cadre<\/p>\n
of Assistant Linemen the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 clearly notices the
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
revision of their scale with effect from 1.5.1990, consequent upon the<\/p>\n
modification of the qualifications for recruitment to the cadre of Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen by introducing the qualification of Matriculation, as a pre-<\/p>\n
condition for appointment to the said cadre. In view of the above, it is<\/p>\n
natural to infer that the HSEB\/UHBVN adopted a two-step procedure while<\/p>\n
accepting the representation of the cadre of Assistant Linemen in the<\/p>\n
HSEB\/UHBVN.        The first step envisaged the upward revision of the<\/p>\n
educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to the cadre of<\/p>\n
Assistant Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN. The said first step was aimed at<\/p>\n
raising the level of the cadre of Assistant Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN to<\/p>\n
that of “Technical Posts” under the State of Haryana. The second step was a<\/p>\n
natural corollary to the first step. Once the cadre of Assistant Linemen in the<\/p>\n
HSEB\/UHBVN had been upgraded, so as to be equated with “Technical<\/p>\n
Posts” under the State of Haryana, they could be allowed parity in terms<\/p>\n
of pay scales as well. Accordingly, having taken to first step by upgrading<\/p>\n
the qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post of Assistant<\/p>\n
Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN, the respondents allowed the cadre of<\/p>\n
Assistant Linemen the pay scale released to “Technical Posts” by the State<\/p>\n
of Haryana. Since the upgradation of the posts was only prospective,<\/p>\n
inasmuch as, future recruitment of non-matriculates was stopped, the posts<\/p>\n
of Assistant Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN could be deemed to have been<\/p>\n
upgraded to the level of “Technical Posts” only prospectively.Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the second step was taken, to prospectively grant Assistant Linemen in the<\/p>\n
HSEB\/UHBVN the pay scale of “Technical Posts” i.e., the pay scale of<\/p>\n
Rs.1200-2400 with effect from 1.5.1990. It is, therefore, not possible for us<\/p>\n
to accept the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                 17<\/span><\/p>\n
to the effect that the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was released to the cadre of<\/p>\n
Assistant Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN, as a consequence of the<\/p>\n
rectification of anomaly in the revised pay scale of Rs.825-1300. Through<\/p>\n
our determination hereinabove, the very basis of the claim of the petitioners<\/p>\n
stands knocked out.\n<\/p>\n
18.         In spite of the conclusions recorded by us in the foregoing<\/p>\n
paragraph, we still have one obligation to discharge,namely, to determine<\/p>\n
the veracity of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, that the HSEB\/UHBVN had arbitrarily chosen 1.5.1990, as the<\/p>\n
date for introduction of the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 for the cadre of<\/p>\n
Assistant Linemen. Having perused the documents referred to by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents, and having recorded our conclusions<\/p>\n
hereinabove, to the effect that the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was introduced<\/p>\n
for the cadre of Assistant Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN, after the<\/p>\n
qualifications for direct recruitment to the cadre of Assistant Linemen was<\/p>\n
revised, so as to introduce the qualification of Matriculation as a pre-<\/p>\n
requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Linemen, we<\/p>\n
are of the view that the date chosen by the HSEB (1.5.1990) to introduce<\/p>\n
the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 for the cadre of Linemen cannot be treated to<\/p>\n
be arbitrary. The pay scale under reference could only be introduced after<\/p>\n
the qualifications for direct recruitment for the cadre of Assistant Linemen<\/p>\n
were brought at par with “Technical Posts” under the State of Haryana.<\/p>\n
Having done so by taking first step, noticed hereinabove, the issue of<\/p>\n
allowing the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 to Assistant Linemen in the<\/p>\n
HSEB\/UHBVN became a possibility, for the first time. It is, therefore, that<\/p>\n
the HSEB\/UHBVN released the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 to Assistant
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN with effect from 1.5.1990. In view of the<\/p>\n
above, it is not possible for us to accept the submission advanced at the<\/p>\n
hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the date 1.5.1990<\/p>\n
chosen by     the HSEB\/UHBVN           for introduction of the pay scale of<\/p>\n
Rs.1200-2040 for Assistant Linemen was arbitrary in any manner<\/p>\n
whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
19.           In view of the conclusions drawn in the foregoing paragraph,<\/p>\n
we find no merit in the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to the<\/p>\n
benefit of the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 1.1.1986 as<\/p>\n
against 1.5.1990 ( i.e., the date with effect from which the said pay scale has<\/p>\n
been released to them).\n<\/p>\n
20..          Although we have already adjudicated upon the claim raised by<\/p>\n
the petitioners on merits, it is also essential for us to record the reasons for<\/p>\n
not accepting the conclusions drawn by a Division Bench of this Court<\/p>\n
while disposing of the instant writ petition on 29.1.1999. Ordinarily, we<\/p>\n
would have been bound by the decision rendered by this Court in Shyam<\/p>\n
Sunder and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and<\/a> another (CWP<\/p>\n
No.13360 of 1996, decided on 22.9.1997) specially when a petition for<\/p>\n
Special Leave to Appeal filed against the judgment rendered by this Court<\/p>\n
in Shyam Sunder’s case (supra) had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
The aforesaid binding effect of the judgment rendered by this Court in<\/p>\n
Shyam Sunder’s case (supra) stands negated with the order passed by the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court on 8.10.2002 consequent upon the filing of a petition for<\/p>\n
Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed by the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
this Court disposing of the instant writ petition on 29.1.1999 (relevant part<\/p>\n
whereof has been extracted in paragraph 7 hereinabove).         We are also of
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                 19<\/span><\/p>\n
the view, that this Court had erroneously arrived at the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
denial of the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was as a consequence of            an<\/p>\n
anomaly. While disposing of the instant writ petition at an earlier juncture<\/p>\n
the claim of the petitioners was accepted on the basis of parity. On the basis<\/p>\n
of conclusions drawn from a large number of documents referred to by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents, we have arrived at the conclusion, that<\/p>\n
the claim of the petitioners on the basis of parity could not have been<\/p>\n
determined with reference to 1.1.1986, as the cadre of Assistant Linemen in<\/p>\n
the HSEB\/UHBVN could not be granted the benefit of parity with<\/p>\n
“Technical Posts” under the State of Haryana, with effect from 1.1.1986.<\/p>\n
The issue of parity with “Technical Posts” under the State of Haryana<\/p>\n
could have been raised only after the qualifications for direct recruitment to<\/p>\n
the cadre of Assistant Linemen in the HSEB\/UHBVN were modified after<\/p>\n
the introduction of        Matriculation (besides the other prescribed<\/p>\n
qualifications) as a pre-requisite qualification, for appointment to the cadre<\/p>\n
of Assistant Linemen. It is only thereupon, that the claim of parity could<\/p>\n
have been raised on behalf of the cadre of Assistant Linemen in the HSEB.<\/p>\n
When the aforesaid situation of parity became a reality, the HSEB\/UHBVN<\/p>\n
released the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 to Assistant Linemen in the<\/p>\n
HSEB\/UHBVN with effect from 1.5.1990. We are also of the view, that no<\/p>\n
reliance can be placed on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court in Jai Parkash and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP<\/p>\n
No.1804 of<\/a> 1994, decided on 24.4.1997) for the determination of the present<\/p>\n
controversy, as the issue adjudicated in the aforesaid writ petition pertained<\/p>\n
to the pay scale(s) of Pump Operators\/Electricians. It was not the case of<\/p>\n
the petitioners before this Court during the course of hearing, that the
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998                  20<\/span><\/p>\n
controversy settled by this Court while disposing of Jai Parkash’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) is akin to the one adjudicated upon during the course of the instant<\/p>\n
deliberations. We are also satisfied that there was sufficient justification for<\/p>\n
releasing the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 to the cadre of Assistant Linemen<\/p>\n
with effect from 1.5.1990. This conclusion has been recorded by us while<\/p>\n
debating the assertion at the hands of the petitioners, whether the instant<\/p>\n
scale of pay has been released to the petitioners arbitrarily with effect from<\/p>\n
1.5.1990 (in paragraph 17 above). For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we<\/p>\n
are of the view that the observations, and the conclusions recorded by this<\/p>\n
Court in its order dated 29.1.1999, while allowing the present writ petition,<\/p>\n
cannot be treated as a sufficient justification for not recording a view<\/p>\n
different from the conclusions recorded earlier.\n<\/p>\n
             Dismissed in the aforesaid terms.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ( J.S.Khehar) )
\n                                                      Judge<\/p>\n
                                               (Ajay Kumar Mittal)
\n                                                        Judge<\/p>\n
                                                 (   Surya Kant )
\n                                                        Judge<\/p>\n
January 31, 2009<\/p>\n
rk
\n CWP No.12029 of 1998   21<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 31 January, 2009 CWP No.12029 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 12029 of 1998 Date of decision: 31.1.2009 Rajbir Singh and others ….Petitioners. vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 31 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 31 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-24T17:17:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 31 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-24T17:17:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5446,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 31 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-24T17:17:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 31 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 31 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 31 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-24T17:17:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 31 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-24T17:17:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009"},"wordCount":5446,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009","name":"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 31 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-24T17:17:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-31-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajbir Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 31 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}