S.S. SAINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Store Keeper in the Department of Civil Aviation, has approached this court for three reliefs. He claims that he is entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 525-15-600-20-660/700-30-830-EB-890-40-1050 instead of the scale of Rs. 400-10-490/540-15-600-EB-20-660 in which he has been working, since he was appointed in the year 1982. Secondly the petitioner claims that he had rendered service in Air Force from Nov. 6, 1965 to Nov. 30, 1980. He claims that he is entitled to the period from Nov. 6, 1965 to Jan. 10, 1968 to be counted towards his pay and seniority on his appointment as Store Keeper. Thirdly, the petitioner claims regularisation against the post of Store Keeper which he has held since July 15, 1982.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual position as emerging from the pleadings of the parties and the record produced before me is necessary. In May 1982, the adviser Civil Aviation, Haryana sent a requisition to the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana for filling up the post of "Storekeeper in the scale of Rs. 400-10-490/540-15-600-EB-660. A photostat copy of the original statement shown to me is placed on record as mark "A". Another requisition was sent to Employment Exchange vide letter dated May 25, 1982. Even in this requisition the post of Storekeeper was stated to be in the scale of Rs. 400-660, as mentioned above. It appears that the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Rajya Sainik Board. The petitioner was considered and an offer was made to him vide letter dated Aug. 17, 1982. A copy of this letter is at Annexure P-1. In this letter it was specifically stated that "you are hereby appointed as Store-keeper (Aviation) in the V.I.P. Aircraft Establishment, Defence Aerodrome, Chandigarh of this department w.e.f. 15.7.1982 (F.N.) in the scale of Rs. 400-10-490/540-15-600-EB-20-660, plus usual allowances admissible from time to time This appointment is against the post of a Storekeeper in the V.I.P. Aircraft Establishment of this Department in the scale of Rs. 525-15-600-20-660/700-30-850-EB-890-40-1050." The petitioner accepted this appointment. However, later on he claimed that he had been orally assured and was entitled to the scale of Rs. 525-1050 instead of Rs. 400-660, in which he had been actually placed. Through the present petition he claims that he is entitled to the scale of Rs. 525-1050 w.e.f. the date of his appointment. In any case it is averred that the petitioner had factually dscharged the duties of Storekeeper in the V.I.P. Aircraft Establishment and as such he was entitled to the scale of pay meant for that post.

(3.) It has been further averred in the petition that the petitioner had served the Indian Air Force from Nov. 6, 1965 to Nov. 30, 1980. A part of this Service i.e. from Nov. 6, 1965 to Jan. 10, 1968 had been rendered by the petitioner during the period of Emergency proclaimed by President of India on account of Chinese aggression. With reference to the provisions of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965, the petitioner claims that even while working as a Storekeeper he was entitled to the period of military service to be taken into account for the purpose of determining his pay and seniority. Reference has also been made to the letter of the Government of Haryana issued on June 29, 1979, by which the Government has decided or "extend the concession granted vide letter under reference to those ex-servicemen also who are reemployed in Civil Service on ad hoc basis." Relying on this letter, the petitioner claims that he was entitled to the benefit of military service towards his pay and seniority. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that vide letter of Feb. 16, 1987, the Government had decided to regularise the services of all ad hoc employees, who had completed two years of service on Nov. 1, 1986 and that in accordance with these instructions his services should have been regularised. In the alternative, it has been averred that the action of the Government in excluding the post, which has not been taken out of the purview of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, was wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is on this premises that the petitioner has claimed the benefit of higher scale of pay, military service benefit and regularisation.