Surajbir Rathee And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

 

  

!

"#$ #% # &## #
#% # 

' ( %

% **  "+,- .

 /+,01*, 2 

2,

** , 4,+ /

,- 

2,

5  '(
 6  4* 7+8, 

2,

** , 4,+ /

,- 

2,

5  '(
   ,2 7+8,   2,

** , 4,+ /

,- 

2,

5  #9 :$;

9 3 "/

# /9 # / 
 

   



 !"

 #$    



!%"&

 '

  ( 

 )" "



*   + ,  - .,  + ,

/ 

   0($   %



!%"&

# /9 # /  "3 '

#;( 0, 11   (     

 /   

  (   3      4    !"



$*  #  

 .,  %

,  

31 ,

 6*

31 ,

 

 81,

 9   :   ;8 9<=     /  >1,

31 ,

 ( ,   ( 1 * (, * 

(  ? 

(,  1 9 + 

@ !



( (      ( , 1

  ( 1     *

+1   / ., 6*, :-  =

  "!!

:   B"!!

C= @  "!!

6*,

# "%@

/

. -1 ., ( 

& 9 ,

"& .,  

  :#
,=



"& 1

 



 



 6* -

 6 &  ?

?

/ #

/ # ) >

 6*  (

?  ( 

 /   (    



 "& , / .  6* 

   , /

?  ( 6* 

 !

/    -1

 1,   



   6* 

( 1 (



  "  ,  ?

&

 "&

1     , 

 

 



/



14  /  *  , 6* 

, ( ""

6   /  4

(   1   (  

6*

, ( ( 

(   *  , /  * . 6* 

   ?

,

 (  /  1

  ,

* ,

/

6    /      ,  



   ?   1 ( ,  1  (  ,

, * ,

/  ,  $ "% 6    1, 6* ,  (   *  "!!

6*  *



") 6   *1  4

( /, 

   :?

&=     1    / , ?



 /    "@         /  /   *   9



,   6*,

  ( 9 ,

9

   1

 6*,

(

 4  1 6*,

9

  (   6*,

6*, 

/ "!!

6*,



(     

$  (   

 

   1  *

 6*,

 "A 31

 6*, 

 ,> /

11

6*, 

11 ,  1   

.  

. (   /

(    ? 1

 1  *



 6*,

 ,  $  , (  6*,

. 1  *

 ( 6*,

7 6*,

.    ( "!

, , 

( , 1 /  

 1  *



  :?

&=

7  ( 6*

 +1   "& 

  $ ,    , (

    (

7 /  6* ,

, * ,

/

 ,

<

9

 ( 1,       1  , ,

9

 ( 1,

(       :?

&=

5 

 ,

, * ,

/  ,  $   

 $ /1 0  



           

 !"#   0    ( 1,   

  ( 1,  

 / !

$ /1



"9. Irrespective of our aforesaid determination (on a perusal of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners), we have no hesitation to uphold the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so as to conclude, that in case of an anomaly, which had arisen during the revision of pay scales, the correction thereof, to be with effect from the date when the anomaly had arisen. In other words, if a pay scale wherein the anomaly had arisen was released from 1.1.1986, it is bound to be corrected from 1.1.1986, and not with effect from the date when the anomaly was discovered, or prospectively with effect from a date of the choice of the employer. Even the learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges the correctness of the aforesaid proposition. The basis of our conclusion recorded hereinabove arises out of a simple premise. Once it is acknowledged that a mistake has been committed, whereby



an anomaly has arisen, the mistake has to be remedied in such a manner, that the aggrieved party does not have any adverse effect of the mistake/anomaly. This would be possible if an anomaly in pay scales is corrected retrospectively with effect from the date when the anomalous pay scale was introduced. On the other hand, if the mistake/anomaly is corrected from a future date, the concerned individual will have to suffer the effect of the anomaly, from the date it had arisen, till the date it was remedied. The latter determination would be iniquitous and unacceptable in law as it would not be able to stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which postulates equality before the law and equal protection of the laws." 6   * *  /  0



$ %&  *

  , (

 1, 11    

   1, *( 6*,

6*,

(  

( 1, 11 

 

% 5   4

(     (  0  



$  %& 

, ,

 ,     (  0  



$ %&       ,

   :?

&= ( 2   

6  1 



  1   , 

  / 1 

@  ( (

* 1

&  ,      "+,- .

 '# /9 # / ( harsha "%

 4 />  D>

 *



D>