NIRMAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this case, is aggrieved against the order dated Sept. 21, 1979 (Annexure P/1) regarding fixation of pay. She claims that her pay as Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, be protected on her appointment to the Superior Judicial Service. She has further submitted that her pay should be fixed in accordance with Rule 4 4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana. I find force in this argument. Rule 13 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, was also applicable to the State of Haryana mutatis mutandi, at the time of the appointment of the petitioner in the Superior Judicial Service.

(2.) This case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Rai, (L.P.A. No. 1099 of 1988 decided on April) 26, 1990 . In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner keeping in view her pay as Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Her pay, which she was drawing as Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, be protected on her appointment to the Superior Judicial Service. The petitioner shall be entitled to get the arrears of pay and allowances and interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date her pay became due to her till the date of payment thereof. The respondents are directed to make the payment of arrears of pay and allowances besides interest within one month. Petition allowed.