{"id":40067,"date":"2008-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008"},"modified":"2015-03-29T05:27:49","modified_gmt":"2015-03-28T23:57:49","slug":"jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008<\/div>\n
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                              CIVIL WRIT PETITION 17343 OF 2007\n\n                              DECIDED ON : 28-11-08\n\nJai Parkash\n\n                                                          ....Petitioner\n\n                     versus\n\nThe State of Haryana & others\n\n                                                          ....Respondents<\/pre>\n
CORAM :       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH\n\n              HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN\n\nPresent:      Shri Naveen Daryal, Advocate, for the petitioner\n\n              Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana\n\nK.KANNAN, J\n\nI             The nature of lis:\n\n<\/pre>\n
              1.The issue involved in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to<\/p>\n
treat his services with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation<\/p>\n
Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) as availing to be treated as continuous<\/p>\n
service with the number of years of service at the Department of Prohibition and Excise<\/p>\n
Commissioner. The answer to this is sought in the context of the entitlement of the<\/p>\n
petitioner to the pensionary benefits by counting the total number of years of service in<\/p>\n
both the Corporation and the Department.\n<\/p>\n
II            Terms and conditions of absorption:\n<\/p>\n
              2.The petitioner had been originally working with the Corporation as a<\/p>\n
Driver on regular basis and when the functioning of the Corporation was scaled down,<\/p>\n
several drivers had been rendered surplus and consequently absorbed with the Excise<\/p>\n
Department. The Commercial Taxation Commissioner issued proceedings on 13-03-<\/p>\n
1997 directing the appointment as surplus drivers of the Corporation with the Department<\/p>\n
on the condition that the services shall be governed by the Haryana Excise and Taxation<\/p>\n
Drivers State Services Group “C” Rules, 1980 (for short Rules 1980) and that the matter<\/p>\n
regarding pay and conditions of their absorption would be referred to the Government.<\/p>\n
The Government had ultimately decided that the pay drawn by the drivers in the<\/p>\n
corporation would be protected and that they would be treated as fresh appointees and
\n CWP 17343 of 2007                                                     –2–\n<\/p>\n
that further no benefit of seniority would be given to them. It also specifically provided<\/p>\n
that the benefit of pension could only be given to them after depositing the amount of<\/p>\n
CPF in GP Fund along with interest. An affidavit\/option in this respect was also taken<\/p>\n
before joining.\n<\/p>\n
III               Attempt of recovery by Department thwarted by judicial verdict:<\/p>\n
      3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had given such an undertaking and he was<\/p>\n
         absorbed in the department and he was subsequently superannuated. The trouble<\/p>\n
         started when the department passed an order on 03-02-1999 when some<\/p>\n
         recoveries were sought to be made on the ground that the petitioner had been<\/p>\n
         fixed on a higher scale of pay than what he was entitled to . The petitioner<\/p>\n
         successfully challenged the recovery proceedings in CWP 1717 of 2003 which<\/p>\n
         found the recovery to be illegal in terms of its earlier DB Ruling in Madan Lal<\/p>\n
         Goel and others versus State of Punjab and others reported in 1998(3) RSJ<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         135.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
IV                Rival contentions as regards computation of length of service:<\/p>\n
       4.         Another problem surfaced when the petitioner had been superannuated and<\/p>\n
the manner of drawing up pensionary benefits had been taken up for consideration.. His<\/p>\n
past service in the Corporation was not reckoned for the length of service. The petitioner<\/p>\n
complained of discriminatory treatment and challenged the same and sought for a<\/p>\n
direction that the petitioner’s past service in the Corporation must also be reckoned for<\/p>\n
computing the number of years of service and for the consequential benefits.<\/p>\n
       5.         The Government objected to the claim of the petitioner on the ground that<\/p>\n
the drivers selected by the department were offered appointments with the condition that<\/p>\n
they would be treated as fresh appointees in the department for the purpose of seniority<\/p>\n
and would not be given any benefit of past service. The counsel for the State laid<\/p>\n
emphasis on the proceedings of the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the<\/p>\n
Government of Haryana marked as Annexure R-1 which laid down as follows:-<\/p>\n
                  “i)       The pay drawn by the Drivers in HSMITC will be protected;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  ii) They will be treated as fresh appointees. No benefit of seniority will be<\/p>\n
                        given to them;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   CWP 17343 of 2007                                    –3–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Their seniority will be counted from the date of joining in this<\/p>\n
                  department; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               v) Benefit of pension will only be given to them after depositing the<\/p>\n
                  amount of CPF in GP Fund along with interest. An affidavit\/option in<\/p>\n
                  this respect may be taken before the joining.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               6.According to him, the petitioner was not, therefore, entitled to seek for<\/p>\n
his service in the Corporation for working out the retiral benefits.<\/p>\n
V              Dispensation in Gurmail Singh’s case, effect<\/p>\n
               7.The transfer in re-employment of persons from the Corporation to the<\/p>\n
Department with the States of Punjab and Haryana has been subject to serveral litigations<\/p>\n
and one such litigation reached upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and decided on 25-10-<\/p>\n
1990 in Gurmail Singh and others versus State of Punjab & others reported in 1992<\/p>\n
(7) SLR 744. While adverting to several other issues raised under the Industrial Disputes<\/p>\n
Act, 1947, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also issued directions to the State Government<\/p>\n
that the operaters should be entitled to counting of their past services with the<\/p>\n
Corporation for the purpose of computing of their salaries, length of service and retiral<\/p>\n
benefits with the Department. The proceedings (Appendix R-1) which the counsel for the<\/p>\n
State relies upon is no more than its stand that all the employees who had been working<\/p>\n
with the Corporation     should be treated as fresh appointees and that no benefit of<\/p>\n
seniority would be given to them. From this, the counsel wants to contend that the<\/p>\n
services of the petitioner rendered with the Corporation would be completely taken out of<\/p>\n
reckoning. Yet another clause in the proceedings clearly spells out that the benefit of<\/p>\n
pension could be given to them after depositing the amount of CPF in GPF along with<\/p>\n
interest. It is nowhere stated that the past service would not be counted for pension. The<\/p>\n
same aspect had been considered yet again in another judgement in CWP 1971 of 2000<\/p>\n
wherein one Udhey Singh and 10 others had sought for the relief that their previous<\/p>\n
service under the Corporation was to be counted for all purposes other than for inter se<\/p>\n
seniority qua drivers already in employment with the Department of the State<\/p>\n
Government. The writ petition had been allowed on 28-01-2002 placing reliance on the<\/p>\n
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmail Singh’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
 CWP 17343 of 2007                                                       –4–\n<\/p>\n
               8.We are not persuaded to take any different view from how the matter has<\/p>\n
been dealt with earlier in CWP 1971 of 2000 placing reliance on the judgement of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner’s claim is well founded and the writ petition is<\/p>\n
allowed with the direction that the services of the petitioner with respondent<\/p>\n
No.4,namely, Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation Ltd. Shall be<\/p>\n
counted for computation of retiral benefits of pension etc.<\/p>\n
               The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     Sd\/-                                                            Sd\/-\n{Uma Nath Singh}                                                  {K.Kannan}\n     Judge                                                        Judge\n\n\n28-11-2008\n IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                CIVIL WRIT PETITION 6537 OF 2008\n\n                                DECIDED ON :27-11-08\n\nHardyal & others\n\n                                                                ....Petitioners\n\n                                versus\n\nState of Haryana and others\n\n                                                                ....Respondents\n\n                       AND\n\n                                CIVIL WRIT PETITION 8041 OF 2008\n\n                                DECIDED ON :          -11-08\n\nArun Kumar and others\n\n                                                                ....Petitioners\n\n                       versus\n\nState of Haryana and others\n\n                                                                ....Respondents\n\nCORAM :         HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S GILL\n\n                HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN\n\nPresent:        Shri Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners\n\n                Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana\n\nK.KANNAN, J\n\nI               Nature of Relief:\n\n<\/pre>\n
                1.This judgement will dispose of CWPs Nos.6537 and 8041 of 2008 as the<\/p>\n
petitioners in both the cases are similarly situated persons.<\/p>\n
                2.Petitioners 1 to 30 in CWP 6537 of 2008 and petitioners 1 to 10 in CWP<\/p>\n
8041 of 2008 seek for regularisation of services with the respondents as Sweepers\/Class-<\/p>\n
IV employees.\n<\/p>\n
II              The rival contentions:\n<\/p>\n
       3.It is the contention of all the petitioners that they have been employed over a<\/p>\n
period between 1984 to 1995 continuously in various schools run under the control of<\/p>\n
respondents 1 to 3 and that having regard to the fact that they have been in continuous<\/p>\n
service, they are entitled to be regularised. All the petitioners claim to have been
\n CWPs 6537 & 8041 of 2008                                                      –2–\n<\/p>\n
recommended through the concerned Employment Exchange and appointments were<\/p>\n
done by adopting the due procedures for appointment of sweepers by persons who were<\/p>\n
competent to appoint them. It was the contention that the posts of Sweepers came neither<\/p>\n
within the perview of Staff Selection Commission nor the Haryana Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission and that the appointments were made by the appointing authorities at their<\/p>\n
own level by adopting suitable criteria for selection on being sponsored by Employment<\/p>\n
Exchanges.\n<\/p>\n
               4.The Government opposes the relief sought for by the petitioners, placing<\/p>\n
reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka versus Uma<\/p>\n
Devi and others 2006(4) SCC 1 and contended that daily rated or contractual employees<\/p>\n
were only temporary employees and had no right to the post or to be continued in service<\/p>\n
to get absorption. Counsel for the State contends that the regularisation can even not be<\/p>\n
made for class IV part time employee, whose services are availed only for a few hours.<\/p>\n
III            Uma Devi’s case not to be read as in conflict with Article 14<\/p>\n
               5.It is to be noted at the outset that the specific contention of the petitioners<\/p>\n
is that they have been sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and that in the absence of<\/p>\n
any specific Rules relating to appointment of Sweepers, the procedure for appointment<\/p>\n
was undertaken by the competent authorities at their respective levels for employment in<\/p>\n
schools under their control. The statement filed by the State does not bring out anywhere<\/p>\n
any violation of any particular rule in the matter of appointment. The mere reliance of the<\/p>\n
State on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra) is neither<\/p>\n
here nor there, since the decision does not go so far as to lay down as a general<\/p>\n
proposition that persons who had been employed on regular basis and working for several<\/p>\n
years or more than a decade would not be considered for regularisation under all<\/p>\n
circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was laying down the law, while considering<\/p>\n
pleas of regularisation, that mere length of service ought not to offer               ground for<\/p>\n
regularisation if the initial appointment was illegal or contrary to recruitment rules. No<\/p>\n
Recruitment Rules have been shown by the respondents to have been flouted. It is not<\/p>\n
denied by them that all the petitioners have been sponsored through Employment<\/p>\n
Exchanges. On the other hand , it is pointed out by the petitioners that all the persons
\n CWPs 6537 & 8041 of 2008                                                  –3–\n<\/p>\n
who had been appointed along with them and were working in several schools in the<\/p>\n
district of Kurukshetra and when the district was bifurcated and another district called<\/p>\n
Yamuna Nagar was carved out of the erstwhile district, the persons in Yamuna Nagar<\/p>\n
district had been regularised while the petitioners who stayed back in Kurukshetra district<\/p>\n
had not been so regularised. The petitioners have filed the order of the Govt. as regards<\/p>\n
the Sweepers in Yamuna Nagar district exhibited in Appendix P-3. They also, therefore<\/p>\n
pleaded discriminatory treatment and relying upon the decision in UPSEB versus<\/p>\n
Pooran Chander Pandey 2007(11) SCC 92 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid<\/p>\n
down that it would be purely unreasonable if the claim for regularisation is denied even<\/p>\n
after a long period of service by practising discrimination for regularising one class of<\/p>\n
persons and rejecting the claim of others. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was deciding the<\/p>\n
claims of daily wage employees of Cooperative Electric Supply Society after it was<\/p>\n
merged with the State Electricity Board and in the context of decision of the Electricity<\/p>\n
Board to regularise the services of its employees working on daily wages on the existing<\/p>\n
vacant posts in the State Board while denying such relief to the services of the employees<\/p>\n
in the erstwhile Cooperative Electric Supply Society.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
cautioned “we have to read Uma Devi’s case in conformity with Article 14 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India and we cannot read it in a manner which would make it incomplete<\/p>\n
with Article 14. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of Land and any judgement not<\/p>\n
even of the Hon’ble Supreme Court can violate the Constitution.”<\/p>\n
IV            Conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
              6.In the circumstances we hold that the petitioners’ claims for<\/p>\n
regularisation have to await till the State’s policy consideration admits of creation of<\/p>\n
adequate posts to all the petitioners and they shall be entitled to permanent absorption<\/p>\n
with continuity in service when such an occasion arises.\n<\/p>\n
              These writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n
       Sd\/-                                                        Sd\/-\n\n{Mehtab S Gill}                                                    {K.Kannan}\n      Judge                                                             Judge\n\n27-11-2008\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION 15715 OF 2008\n\n                                 DATE OF DECISION :27-11-2008\n\nAshok Kumar\n\n                                                                     ....Petitioner\n\n                        versus\n\nState of Haryana and others\n\n                                                                     ....Respondents\n\nCORAM :         HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S GILL\n\n                HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN\n\nPresent:        Shri Tajender K Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner\n\n                Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG,Haryana\n\nK.KANNAN, J\n\nI     Relief claimed:\n\n<\/pre>\n
     1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated<\/p>\n
           04-04-2006 re-fixing the pay in the scale of Rs.2550-3200\/-from the basic pay<\/p>\n
           scale of Rs.2650-4000\/- and seeking for the relief of directing the respondents to<\/p>\n
           grant second ACP (Assured Career Progression) scales on the completion of 20<\/p>\n
           years of service taking into account the service rendered by the petitioner in<\/p>\n
           Municipal Committee, Rohtak before he was absorbed in the State service in the<\/p>\n
           year 1999.\n<\/p>\n
II    The contentions of the petitioner :\n<\/p>\n
     2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Peon on 21-05-1983<\/p>\n
           and in the year 1999 when octroi was abolished in the State, the octroi staff<\/p>\n
           working in the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, had been rendered surplus and<\/p>\n
           adjusted by the Government through transfer in other departments and posted in<\/p>\n
           the scale of Rs.2550-3200\/-. The petitioner had been granted the first ACP Scale<\/p>\n
           of Rs.800-1150\/- which was revised as Rs.2650-4000\/-. On an audit objection<\/p>\n
           regarding fixation of pay at Rs.2650-4000\/-, the respondents sought to place him<\/p>\n
           in the grade of Rs.2550-3200 on the ground that only the pay protection was<\/p>\n
           available but not the grade. According to the petitioner, he had completed 20<\/p>\n
           years of service as on 21-05-2003 and became entitled to the second ACP Scale\n<\/p>\n
                        –2–\n<\/p>\n
  of Rs.3050-4350\/-but instead of granting the ACP Scale, he was fixed in the<\/p>\n
  scale of Rs.2550-3200\/-and even the benefit of the first ACP scale was<\/p>\n
  withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
  3.The further contention of the petitioner was that similarly situated persons had<\/p>\n
  filed CWP 15039 of 2003 and this Court vide its judgement dated 02-08-2005<\/p>\n
  allowed the writ petition and held that the persons were entitled to count the<\/p>\n
  services rendered in the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, for the purposes of<\/p>\n
  computing the period of service for the grant of ACP Scales. The State of<\/p>\n
  Haryana had filed SLP in Civil Appeals 4446 of 2008 and a batch of cases in<\/p>\n
  State of Haryana versus Deepak Sood and others in the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
  against the judgement in CWP 15039 of 2003 but it was also dismissed on 15-<\/p>\n
  07-2008. The petitioner, who had applied for premature retirement and also<\/p>\n
  retired on 31-08-2008 seeks for his computation of pension and other benefits to<\/p>\n
  be calculated after refixing the salary of second ACP Scale of Rs.3050-4350\/-<\/p>\n
  III   The response on behalf of the State:\n<\/p>\n
4. The counsel for the         State places reliance on the order of the Haryana<\/p>\n
  Panchayats Department dated 24-12-1999 (Annexure R-1) which states inter alia<\/p>\n
  that “he will not claim the benefit of his past service towards seniority. His inter<\/p>\n
  se seniority will be determined separately but his pay will be protected.” Show-<\/p>\n
  cause notice that has been issued on 04-07-2005 was on the assumption that the<\/p>\n
  period of service at the Municipal Committee, Rohtak,was not to be reckoned for<\/p>\n
  consideration of the claim of number of years for the application of ACP Scale.<\/p>\n
  The department also appears to have taken the view that the Hon’ble Apex Court<\/p>\n
  while disposing of Civil Appeals 4446 to 4448 of 2008 the State of Haryana<\/p>\n
  versus Deepak Sood had not considered the ACP Rules and that it was<\/p>\n
  contemplating to file a review petition.\n<\/p>\n
  IV    Supreme Court judgement covers the field on ACP Scale:\n<\/p>\n
  The decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above has reasoned as follows :<\/p>\n
        “A perusal of these terms and conditions makes it clear that what is being<\/p>\n
        lost by these surplus staff is their seniortiy. They will have to get zero<\/p>\n
        seniority in the new department but their past service has been counted for\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 –3–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
fixation of pay as well as pensionary benefits. The scheme of ACP grade<\/p>\n
came subsequently. On that basis the respondents made a grievance that<\/p>\n
they were being denied the benefit of ACP and the services rendered by<\/p>\n
them in the Municipal Committee has not been counted for the purposes of<\/p>\n
calculating 10\/20 years of service in the department. It is misfortune that<\/p>\n
the respondents have been declared surplus in the Municipal Committee,<\/p>\n
Panipat but the Government has been benevolent to them and absorbed<\/p>\n
them in the State Government but denied them the benefit of past service<\/p>\n
for the purpose of seniority. However, at the same time they have counted<\/p>\n
their past service for the purpose of pay and pensionary benefits. Once the<\/p>\n
Government considered them eligible for fixation of pay and pensionary<\/p>\n
benefit and counted their past service then there is no reason why ACP<\/p>\n
grade should be denied to them. Having lost, at one hand their seniority in<\/p>\n
the new department, it would be unfair to deny them the benefit of ACP<\/p>\n
grade. When the Government counts their past service for grant of the<\/p>\n
benefit of pay fixation and pension, there is no reason why their past<\/p>\n
service should not be given the benefit of ACP grade.\n<\/p>\n
     A similar question came up before this Court in the case of (1)<\/p>\n
     Dwajen Chandra Sarkar and another versus Union of India and<\/p>\n
     another reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 598.            In almost<\/p>\n
     identical situation a person was transferred to another department on<\/p>\n
     administrative grounds and his past service of 16 years was not<\/p>\n
     counted.     He challenged the same and matter ultimately reached<\/p>\n
     before this Court and this Court after considering the matter came to<\/p>\n
     the conclusion that granting them higher grade under the Scheme for<\/p>\n
     time bound promotion does not, therefore, offend the condition<\/p>\n
     imposed in the transfer order. It was observed by this Court,”We<\/p>\n
     are, therefore, of the view that the appellants entitled to the higher<\/p>\n
     grade from the date on which they have complted 16 years and the<\/p>\n
     said period is to be computed on the basis of their total service both<\/p>\n
     in the Rehabilitation Department and the P & T Departments.”\n<\/p>\n
 CWP 15715 of 2008                                                         –4–\n<\/p>\n
Their Lordships referred to earlier judgements given by this Court i.e. in the case of Renu<\/p>\n
Mullick versus Union of India 1994(1) SCC 373. In this case also in identical situation<\/p>\n
the benefit was given to incumbent likewise in Raksha Mantri versus V.M.Joseph<\/p>\n
reported in 1998(5) SCC 305 and in the case of A.P.State Electricity Board versus<\/p>\n
R.Parthasarathi reported in 1998(9) SCC 425.        The same principle was re-affirmed<\/p>\n
recently in the case of State of Maharashtra and others versus Uttam Vishnu Pawar<\/p>\n
(2008) 2 SCC 646 to which one of us (A.K.Mathur,J) was a party wherein in para 13 it<\/p>\n
was observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, in view of the consistent approach of this Court, it is no more res-integra that<\/p>\n
the incumbent on transfer to the new department may not get the seniority but his<\/p>\n
experience of the past service rendered will be counted for the purpose of other benefits<\/p>\n
like promotion or for the higher pay scale as per the Scheme of the Government.”<\/p>\n
The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely governs the issue regarding the<\/p>\n
application of ACP Scheme by including the number of years of service in Municipal<\/p>\n
Committee, Rohtak,as availing to the persons employed in the Committee who were later<\/p>\n
absorbed in the State Services. The impugned proceedings have originated from a wrong<\/p>\n
understanding of terms and conditions laid down under the scheme of absorption. The<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to the ACP Scales by including the entry into the service of the<\/p>\n
Municipal Committee, Rohtak as the starting point of his employment and work out his<\/p>\n
claim for ACP Scale accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
V       Re-fixation of Scale:\n<\/p>\n
5. The first prayer in the writ petition is that the revised scale on absroption had been<\/p>\n
    wrongly made as Rs.2650-4000\/-instead of Rs.2550-3200\/- and that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
    getting salary in the Ist ACP Scale of Rs.800-1250\/-which was revised as Rs.2650-<\/p>\n
    4000\/- and the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.3040\/-in the pay scale of Rs.2650-<\/p>\n
    4600\/-. Accordingly, on his appointment in the office of the 3rd respondent, the salary<\/p>\n
    of the petitioner was fixed in the Ist ACP Scale of Rs.2650-4000\/-. The appointment<\/p>\n
    of the petitioner was, however, in the scale of Rs.2550-3200\/- but after giving the<\/p>\n
    benefit of past service in the Municipal Committee, his pay had been fixed in the ACP<\/p>\n
    Scal;e. We uphold the contentions of the petitioner comprehensively and quash the<\/p>\n
    impugned proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
   CWP 15715 of 2008                                                         --5--\n\n  VI          Conclusion:\n\n<\/pre>\n
              6. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04-04-2006<\/p>\n
                  (Annexure P-2) is quashed. There shall be a mandamus directing lthe<\/p>\n
                  terminal benefits to be calculated on the 2nd ACP Scale of Rs.3050-4350<\/p>\n
                  and arrears, if any, shall be paid within 3 months. For any further delay,<\/p>\n
                  it will carry simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Sd\/-                                                         Sd\/-\n\n{Mehtab S Gill}                                                     {K.Kannan}\n      Judge                                                         Judge\n\n27-11-2008\n  <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 17343 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 28-11-08 Jai Parkash ….Petitioner versus The State of Haryana & others ….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH 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-40067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008 - 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\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-28T23:57:49+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-28T23:57:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3410,\"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\\\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-28T23:57:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008 - 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\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-28T23:57:49+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-28T23:57:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008"},"wordCount":3410,"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\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008","name":"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-28T23:57:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-parkash-vs-the-state-of-haryana-others-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jai Parkash vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 27 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/40067","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=40067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}