J.S. YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions viz. CWP Nos. 10894 of 1990 and 363 and 4016 of 1991, challenge the action of the State Government in not taking into consideration Special Pay while determining the amount of Dearness Allowance admissible to the officer/officials serving in different departments. CWP No. 10894 of 1990 has been filed by a former Assistant District Attorney and now an Advance of this Court. All the three petitions were argued by him on behalf of the petitioners. The facts as stated in this petition may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was working as an Assistant District Attorney under Department of Prosecution in the State of Haryana. This post originally carried the scale of Rs. 350-650 with a special pay of Rs. 75.00 Vide orders dated March 30, 1982, a photocopy of which is placed on record as "Mark-A", the existing pay scales of various posts were revised. The pay scale of the post of Assistant District Attorney was raised to Rs. 700-1250 and Rs. 750-1450 w.e.f. April 1, 1979. Both the scales carried a special pay of Rs. 75.00 with effect from Feb. 1, 1981, the special pay was raised to Rs. 100.00. This pay scale was further revised and raised to Rs. 1640-2000 w.e.f. Jan. 1, 1986. The special pay of Rs. 100.00 was raised to Rs. 200.00. It is the claim of the petitioner that the special pay attached to the post of Assistant District Attorney was not that as defined under Rule 2.52 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I, Part-1, but had been granted in lieu of a higher time scale and thus forms a part of the scale itself.

(3.) Prior to the revision of the scales w.e.f. Jan. 1, 1986, while paying Dearness Allowance, special pay was treated as part of pay. By way of illustration, it may be mentioned that the scale of Rs. 700-1250 with special pay of Rs. 100.00 was treated as a scale of Rs. 800-1350 and the dearness allowance was accordingly determined by the respondents. However, after the revision of the pay scales, the dearness allowance is being paid only on the basic pay and the element of special pay is not being taken into consideration. This has been challenged by the petitioner as being arbitrary, unfair and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.