Savita v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: May 14, 2024 Savita .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: - Mr. Jitender S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG., Haryana.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) 1.

In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that in order to avoid the benefit of the fixation of pay under the Service-Bye- Laws of the year 2018, the petitioner who was working on the post of Accounts Assistant, has again been posted as Information Assistant which act of the respondents is totally arbitrary and illegal.

2.

Certain facts may be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Information Assistant on a contract basis for a period of one year on 27.07.2009. Thereafter the petitioner, was made to work on the post of Accounts Assistant-cum Data Entry Operator on which post the petitioner continued working for a period of eight years till passing of the impugned order dated 29.05.2019 (Annexure P-11), vide which the petitioner was again posted as Information Assistant from the post of the Account Assistant.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as per the Service- Bye Laws which have been framed by the respondents in the year 2018, in case any

employee has worked on a particular post for a period of more than five years, he/she is entitled for the remuneration to be converted into emolument i.e basic pay plus dearness allowance and in order to avoid the grant of the said benefit, after a period of eight years, the petitioner has again been posted from the post of Accounts Assistant to that of Information Assistant. Hence, the orders dated 29.05.2019, 31.05.2019 and 31.05.2019 (P-11 to P-13 respectively) are liable to be set aside and the petitioner need to be treated as a Accounts Assistant for all intents and purposes in order to grant her the benefit of emoluments as envisaged under the Service-Bye- Laws of the year 2018.

5.

Learned State counsel on the other hand, submits that once the initial appointment of the petitioner was made on the post of Information Assistant, merely that she has worked on the post of Accounts Assistant, the said benefit cannot be granted to her.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.
  

      



 

    

     



     

          

 

 

   



    

     

 

! "#

$ %  

 



     

  

          &

  !





   '    

  

  ' 

     

   (  



  

        

    



&       ) &  #* #+'  

,  

  

       

      

        

    !



     



&

    

     

             ) &  #* #+'

, , -&

    



 

   

     



    

       

 





     





&  



       .    !





           



    



     

             



         /

 '           

'0  

 0  

 

! "#

 "# 0   & $   '   

               

         

   &

     

 

&     ) &  #* #+    

, 

  

 1

   .  

  

    

  

   

        



   

&

   

   

     

    

   

    

       

  

 



&     

,) &  #* #+

 +                        

   

 



&  ) &  #* #+'

,     



  

 

 



     

         &  

          

         

  

  

 May 14, 2024 ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) archana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No