Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1756 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. S. C. Chadha

2007-09-27

MAHESH GROVER, VIJENDER JAIN

body2007
Judgment Vijender Jain, J. 1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two appeals which have been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment dated 29.10.2003 of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 16950 of 1998. 2. Since the narrative of facts has been taken from LPA No. 277 of 2004 preferred by the State of Punjab and others, we shall describe Shri S.C. Chadha as `respondent No. 1 in the judgment, even though it will take in its fold LPA No. 76 of 2004 preferred by him. 3. Shri A.G. Masih, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab contended that respondent No. 1, who filed the aforementioned writ petition, was working as Project Manager in the Punjab State Handloom and Textiles Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, `the PUNTEX) in the pay scale of Rs. 4125-5600/-. He was declared surplus by the PUNTEX and sought fresh appointment as Treasury Officer in the Department of Finance (Treasuries & Accounts) of the State Government in the lower pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- and it was at his request that he was recommended for appointment as Treasury Officer by the appointing authority. Having accepted the offer of appointment as Treasury Officer, which was lower in scale as that of the post he was holding in the PUNTEX, respondent No. 1 could not claim the fixation of pay scale as was in the PUNTEX, because the only policy of the State Government was to protect the last pay drawn and not the pay scale. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contented that the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition has been accepted is perfectly in order and it only requires modification to the extent that the interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payment w.e.f. 27.7.1993 onwards should be granted. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record including the impugned judgment. 6. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record including the impugned judgment. 6. Before the learned Single Judge, the stand taken up for depriving respondent No. 1 of the pay scale which he was deriving in the PUNTEX was that judgment dated 22.12.1997 passed in CWP No. 11399 of 1997 - Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab in which identically situated persons had been granted the relief of fixation of pay scale, was stayed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 5955 of 1998. Despite this fact, a statement had been made by the learned counsel appearing for the State giving a categoric concession that the case of respondent No. 1 was squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Balbir Singhs case (supra), which was the subject-matter of SLP. 7. Shri Masih very fairly conceded before us that the aforesaid SLP stands dismissed by the Apex Court. 8. In view of the above, when the learned counsel for the State had conceded that the case of respondent No. 1 was squarely covered by the judgment in Balbir Singhs case (supra), which had attained finality in view of the rejection of the SLP by the Supreme Court, we feel that nothing survives in the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab and others. 9. However, Shri Masih raised an interesting argument that respondent No. 1 had accepted the offer of appointment in the lower pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-, even though he was working in the PUNTEX in the pay scale of Rs. 4125-5600/- and, hence, his prayer cold not be exceeded (acceded ?) to. 10. There is an obvious fallacy in the argument of Shri Masih. The PUNTEX which was the parent department of respondent No. 1, was a government owned corporation and it was ordered to be wound up on the decision of the State Government. Its employees, who were rendered surplus on such winding up, were directed to be absorbed in the government service as a policy measure. It was not a voluntary act on the part of respondent No. 1 or similarly situated employees to accept the post in the lower pay scale. Rather, he had no other choice as he was given this offer in distressed circumstances. 11. It was not a voluntary act on the part of respondent No. 1 or similarly situated employees to accept the post in the lower pay scale. Rather, he had no other choice as he was given this offer in distressed circumstances. 11. In any eventuality, when the government had itself laid down the policy of absorbing with a stipulation that the employees last pay would be protected, it cannot resile from its stand to state that a person, who had been put in a disadvantageous position by first losing his job and then making him to work in a lower pay scale, would continue as such. The policy which does not achieve the ultimate object which is complete rehabilitation of an employee, unsettled, because of its employer can only be termed as irrational and arbitrary. 12. However, we do not propose to delve on this aspect of the matter in deep as, on the facts of the case mentioned above and in view of the categoric concession given by the learned counsel for the State that the matter was squarely covered by the judgment in Balbir Singhs case against which SLP has been dismissed, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in so far as it relates to the protection of last pay drawn by respondent No. 1 in the pay scale of Rs. 4125-5600/-. 13. In so far as the claim of respondent No. 1 for grant of interest on the arrears at the rate of 18% per annum is concerned, we find that similarly situated persons had filed civil suit to claim the same relief and the same was decreed by the trial Court and the State and its authorities were directed to pay the arrears along with 12% interest. RSA No. 3781 of 1999 filed by the State of Punjab challenging the decision of the trial Court/First Appellate Court was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 4.12.1999 which was upheld by the Apex Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Punjab and others is dismissed, whereas the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 is accepted to the extent that he will be entitled to receive the arrears along with 12% interest as has been directed in the case of similarly situated persons.