SUBHASH CHANDER AND OTHERS; CHANDI RAM AND OTHERS; ASHOK VASHISTH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to decide Civil Writ Petitions No. 18438, 20307, 13408 of 2010 and 824, 3856, 4343, 4347, 6750, 7034, 7663, 8180, 10072, 11471, 11689, 11770, 12431, 13066, 14669, 15882, 17033, 18184 18352, 21003 of 2011 and 616, 3101, 3898, 6992, 7978, 10363, 15170, 16062, 17949, 21256 of 2012, as common questions of facts and law are involved in these cases which have been taken up together as per the request and on the consent of the counsel for the parties. For brevity, the facts are taken from CWP No. 18438 of 2010.

(2.) Petitioners in these cases have approached this Court, impugning the order dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure-P-4), issued by the Government of Haryana, Department of Finance, interpreting Note 2 below Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (in short 'HCS(RP) Rules, 2008') and Note 2 below Rule 18 of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 (in short 'HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008'), whereby under Clause III under the heading 'Interpretation', it has been stated that the proviso attached with the rules ibid would not be applicable in cases where the pre-revised pay scale of the post has been upgraded as indicated in Part-B of the 1 st Schedule of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and in column 4 of Schedule-I Part-I of the HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008, as the case may be, on the ground that this interpretation is alien to the statutory Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and through executive/administration instructions, the statutory Rules cannot be amended, altered or modified and such action of the respondents is violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Shamsher Jang Bahadur and others, 1972 SLR 441 and further that the recovery cannot be effected from the petitioners as pay fixation had been done by the respondents on their own due to misinterpretation of the Rules. There are no allegations of mis-representation or fraud played by the petitioners and thus, the claim of the petitioners for no recovery is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 155 PunLR 511. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 18601 of 2006 titled as Om Parkash and others Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 10.4.2008, wherein a similar situation had arisen under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 and Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998, where again admissible bunching in the revised grades were initially granted but on a clarification issued by the Government of Haryana, the same was withdrawn which was challenged and the said challenge was upheld by this Court, holding the petitioners entitled to the grant of increment and the explanation issued by the Government of Haryana, to be violative of the statutory Rules and thus, not sustainable.

(3.) Reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein it has been stated that the benefit of bunching was not applicable in those cases where the pay scale of an employee was revised by the Government in pre-revised scales prior to the new revision of the pay scale. The scale of the present petitioners were revised by the Government in pre-revised scales from Rs. 4500-7000 to Rs. 6500-10500, thus, the benefit claimed by the petitioners under the present writ petition was not admissible to them and the pay of the petitioners was rightly reduced by the respondents. It has been stated that the proviso attached to Rule 7 of the HCS(RP) Rules, 2008 and Rule 18 of the HCS(ACP) Rules, 2008, shall not be applicable in such cases as that of the petitioners.