Mahesh Chander And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CWP-17121-2018 (O&M) - 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17121-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.10.2024 Mahesh Chander and Others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG Haryana ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the present petition is for directing the respondents to extend the benefit of refixation of pay to the petitioners after restoring the benefits of adhoc relief and DA cut as on 01.04.1979 in terms of the judgment passed in CWP-16084-1997 titled as Dharampal Singh vs. 

  


  



 


 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 


 

  
 




 
 

!



 






!
  





 
"
 
 
#
$


"







 

"!

 


"


 

%

 
 
&



 

  

"



 '
!
 

  
!


 

 !






(


 

 

!


 




 



 
 
 




 


 


 

 


 !

(


 !
  

)
  



)* 
+,
 
 
 
  



 
- )
 

.

$ ./ ,

.

./ ,
.

.

./ ,

.

.

./ 1


 
  





 
 !
 
2

 


)* 
+,
 

 

 + 

CWP-17121-2018 (O&M) - 22



 !
 

3 !


4  
 



 

  
& 







 !
2
 

"

 

  
 !
"
 


!
" 
 
22
222

25






 
 
 






.

$ ./ ,
.

./ ,
.

.

./ ,


.

.

./ 1


 
 

*
 

2

 
 
 









)
- )


!


#

,


 
!






 !
 

 !
 

" 
 
 


! "!
 !


)* 
+.

+
(
 
 & 

6 


 


 

 



 
$



)* 
2

 )* 
+,



 


 


)
- )
 
 


!


"





 


 



 


 ! 


*


 !
 !
 
 

 
 
"!
 !

)* 
+.

+
)  

#
,
 '
"

'
 




 )* 
+,


 
 

 


 

 !
 


!
"!
 !


- )
7+ 

8 



 


 
 !
&

 


2





 

 
 

 

 !




" 


6  

 
 


(
 !



 
"
  
 


6 

  

9
%
5
 6 "
  :!
; 
.//
< =
  >
1$.

 
"

"!
 8 
 








" 
 
6 


 
 



2



 
 
"
"
"
 








+ * 
 !









 

 !



#
$
 
"
+ *


#
,
 


)* 
+,


&   " 
 

 !
 


 
"
 

  " 

 
"
 




8 
#

.,,


.//


&  
" 
3  !

 
 
"


,0
  !






 ?

2.

This Court while following the aforesaid judgment, had disposed of CWP-12583-2002 titled as R.S. Khanna and Others vs. The State of Haryana and Others, vide judgment dated 08.05.2019, which reads thus:

CWP-17121-2018 (O&M) - 31. Prayer in the instant writ petition is for the issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the deduction/cut ordered vide the offending parts of paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of Annexure P-3 in respect of the ad hoc relief allegedly paid in excess as also to strike down the offending part of the definition of the terms existing emoluments with regard to "minus excess payment of adhoc relief" as contained in Rule 3(d) (ii) of the Haryana Civil Service (Revised Scale of Pay) Rules, 1980. Prayer is also for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the deduction made from the payment of additional dearness allowance w.e.f 1.5.1973 as also to restore the deduction made from the payment of additional dearness allowance.

Prayer is also for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to refix the pay and pension of the petitioners in the revised scales as introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1979, 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996 after restoring the deduction/cut of alleged excess payment of ad hoc relief and after inviting fresh options from the petitioners. Lastly, prayer is to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioners the arrears of pay/pension accruing due to the restoration of the cut/deduction alongwith interest @ 18%.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the claims in the writ petition are covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4518 of 2000 in case titled as 'R.K. Gupta and others versus State of Haryana and others' which in turn was allowed in the light of the decision in CWP No.16084 of 1997 in case titled as 'Dharam Pal Singh versus State of Haryana and others' and decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8661 of 2009 in case titled as 'State of Haryana and others versus R.K. Gupta and others'.

3. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana contends that the writ petition is liable to be allowed as the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as allowed in the decision referred to above.

4. The same satisfies learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to the benefits as per the decision in R.K. Gupta's case (supra) as referred to above.

3.

Learned State counsel has not been able to distinquish either the factual aspects or the judgment aforesaid, however, refers to the judgment in State of Haryana and Another vs. O.P. Sharma and Another, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 386, regarding which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same has also been dealt with by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and

CWP-17121-2018 (O&M) - 4Others vs. R.K. Gupta and Others in Civil Appeal No.8661 of 2009, decided on 08.12.2015, which reads thus:

"1. Heard Ms. Nidhi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana and Mr. M. C. Dhingra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The State is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11.08.2003 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4518 of 2000, in the matter of additional Dearness Allowance, wherein the High Court followed an earlier judgment in CWP No. 13300 of 1990, however, limiting the monetary benefits to 38 months immediately preeceding the filing of the Writ Petition.

3. It is seen that the relied on judgment was pursued before this Court in SLP (C) No. 2578 of 1996 and by order dated 09.05.1997, the same was dismissed on the ground of delay. The State filed Review Petition (C) No. 2246 of 1998. There was a delay in filing the Review Petition as well. However, this Court dismissed the Review Petition observing ".....both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits." Thus, the relied on Judgment has become final at the hands of this Court.

4. We also find another order dated 09.10.2001 of this Court in the appeal filed by the State of Haryana itself in Civil Appeal No. 923 of 1992, wherein also, this Court took the view that the orders passed by the High Court did not call for any interference.

5. Though Ms. Nidhi Gupta, learned counsel for the State, made a pursuasive attempt inviting our attention to the earlier Judgment of this Court titled as "State of Haryana and Anr. Vs. O. P. Sharma & Ors" and other connected matters, reported in (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 386, we are afraid we cannot take a different view than what has been taken in the relied on Judgment, which has attained finalty before this Court on merits.

6. In view of the above, the Civil Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs."

4.

In wake of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Dharampal (supra).

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 23.10.2024 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No