Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2093 (PNJ)

D. P. Karkara v. State of Punjab

2016-08-12

KULDIP SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. This order of mine shall dispose of two cases bearing CWP No.20371 of 2014 and 3542 of 2015. For brevity, the facts have been extracted from CWP No.20371 of 2014. 2. Petitioners in all joined as Junior Auditors in the Local Audit Department on different dates and later on, promoted as Senior Auditor and thereafter, on other posts as per their seniority. 3. According to the petitioners, as per Notification dated 04.09.2000,they were getting the scale of Rs.3700-5000/- + special pay of Rs.400/- and the same was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the revised pay scale of Rs.13,500-16,800/- with initial start of Rs.14,300/-. In this way, the start up of salary of the petitioners was Rs.14,300/-. 4. Vide Notification dated 22.02.2010, the Government recommended the revision of pension and the same was revised vide letter dated 10.05.2010. 5. The plea of the petitioners is that since they were working in the pay scale of Rs.14300-400-15900-450-16800/-. Therefore, their revised pay was wrongly fixed in the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- grade pay of Rs.8,400/- by ignoring the fact that operative scale of the past from which the petitioner had retired was Rs.14300- 16800 and not Rs.13500-16800. Therefore, taking the scale of Rs.14300-16800/-, their pay was to be revised in the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000/- plus grade pay Rs.8700/-. 6. Petitioners seek the quashing of order dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure P-12), whereby the pay of the petitioners was wrongly fixed in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 +8400 grade pay in place of Rs.37400- 67000+Rs.8700 grade pay. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment (Annexure P-5) passed by this Court in CWP No.6993 of 2008, titled as “Ajaib Singh Kandhari v State of Punjab and another”, which was affirmed by the Divison Bench of this Court in LPA No.665 of 2009 (Annexure P-6). 9. I am of the view that the ratio of said judgment is not attracted in present case. There the employee was getting a particular scale with a minimum start up and pension was ordered to be fixed as per start up salary. 10. In the present case, the controversy is entirely different. Here the present petitioners claim that since they were getting the pay scale of Rs.13500-16800 with initial start up of Rs.14,300/-. There the employee was getting a particular scale with a minimum start up and pension was ordered to be fixed as per start up salary. 10. In the present case, the controversy is entirely different. Here the present petitioners claim that since they were getting the pay scale of Rs.13500-16800 with initial start up of Rs.14,300/-. Therefore, their pay scale should be taken as Rs.14,300/- while revising the scale in the corresponding scale, in view of the instructions (Annexure P-3), which is reproduced as under: “I am directed to refer to Punjab Government letter No.3483-FR(PRC)-69/14498, dated the 7th July, 1979, on the above subject and to say that the words “proviso (d) to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of “appearing in the first line thereof, have caused doubt as to the real intention of the clarification. I am accordingly to clarify that wherever higher initial pay has been provided for a post, such higher start shall be deemed to be the minimum stage of the revised scale of the employee concerned for all purposes. The words “proviso (d) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of “shall be deemed to have been omitted from the said letter ab initio”. 11. A perusal of the said instruction makes it clear that in case, the pay is re-fixed, and higher scale is given, the higher start up shall deemed to be minimum stage of revised scale of the employees concerned for all purposes. In the present case, revised scale was given. The initial start up of Rs.14,300/- is to be protected. Annexure P-3 never meant that instead of pay scale of Rs.13,500-16,800/- the pay scale of the petitioners shall deemed to have been Rs.14,300-18,150/-. 12. The instruction (Annexure P-3) further makes it clear that the pay scale will remain same but the initial start up pay shall be protected while granting the higher scale. It was never meant that it shall deemed to mean that the petitioner will get the minimum start up pay shall deemed to be the scale for the purpose of granting corresponding scale in the pay revision. 13. In this case, in the revised pay scale, the petitioners were given the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39100/- in the revised pay scale + Rs.8400/- grade pay and the pay was fixed @ Rs.33,510/-, which is more than Rs.14,300/-. 14. 13. In this case, in the revised pay scale, the petitioners were given the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39100/- in the revised pay scale + Rs.8400/- grade pay and the pay was fixed @ Rs.33,510/-, which is more than Rs.14,300/-. 14. Since, the pay of the petitioners was correctly fixed, therefore, they are not entitled for re-fixation of pay in the higher scale, revised pension or any arrears. 15. It being so, I do not find any merit in the aforesaid writ petitions. As such, both the petitions are dismissed.