LAWS(P&H)-1991-5-165

J L JAGGI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On May 03, 1991
J L JAGGI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are Development Officers in the Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board, in the trades of Leather, Carpentry and Blacksmith, and Pottery, have prayed for the issuance of a direction to the State Government and the Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board, to release to the petitioners the pay scale of Rs. 800-1600 with effect from 1st April, 1979, and the pay scale of Rs. 900-1700 with effect from 1st April, 1985, and for the quashing of the order dated 26th April, 1985 (Annexure P.14), by which the pay scale of Rs. 900-1700 which had already been allowed to the petitioners with effect from 1st April, 1985, has been withdrawn.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioners are employees of the Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), which is constituted under the Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Act, 1955, as applicable to the State of Haryana. The Board having been incorporated under the Act of the State Legislature, has also been given the powers of framing Regulations regarding remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of its employees. Regulation 11 of the Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board (Service) Regulations, 1976, which deals with determination of pay of members of the service, reads as under :-

(3.) In the written statement, it has been pleaded that the Board was bound by the directions issued by the State Government in financial matters, according to the provisions of Section 31(1) of the Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Act. All pay scales of the posts of the Board have got to be approved from the Finance Department of the State Government as cent per cent expenditure of the Board was borne by the State Government itself Therefore, since the state Government had not approved the proposal of the Board, the petitioners had no right in law to claim the revision of their pay scales and their equation with that of Gur Development Officer. On merits it has been pleaded that "the post of Development Officer (Gur) was in existence since 1969 and was sufficientlly in advance stage, while the posts of Development Officers in Leather, Carpentry and Blacksmithy and Pottery, were created later on and were still in the initial stages". Therefore, different pay scales were provided for different posts.