SUDESH KUMAR SUD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Sudesh Kumar Sud, former Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary and allowances to him as per terms of appointment. He also made a claim to House Rent Allowance, Conveyance Allowance, Telephone Bill charges. He found his claim on the following facts :-

(2.) The petitioner initially joined State of Haryana as Assistant District Attorney in 1971. Subsequently he was promoted as Deputy District Attorney and in 1987 he was promoted and appointed as District Attorney in the office of Advocate General, Haryana. In 1989, Advocate General, Haryana, recommended for his promotion and appointment as Assistant Advocate General. However, for one or the other reason the same did not mature. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement by giving 3 months' notice and was relieved of his duties on December 9, 1990 afternoon. The Advocate General, Haryana, respondent No. 2, keeping in view that the petitioner while in service in the office of the Advocate General was handling important cases wanted the petitioner to be appointed as Assistant Advocate General. He approached the Chief Minister who agreed to his proposal. Thus the petitioner was offered the job of Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, protecting his pension and giving him other allowances. His appointment was to be on the same terms and conditions which were applicable to Shri Nobat Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General. At the time of retirement the petitioner was getting basic pay of Rs. 4125/- in the scale of Rs. 3700-5000. He was getting special pay of Rs. 400/-, the telephone bills of the petitioner in respect of telephone installed at his house were being paid by the Government as would appear from Annexure P.1/1. The scale of the post of Assistant Advocate General was Rs. 4100-5300 plus 500/- as special pay plus usual allowances. The letter written by Advocate General in this respect is Annexure P.2. However, when the Government subsequently conveyed his order of appointment dated January 17, 1991, it was mentioned therein that the pay would be fixed later on under normal Rules. There was no mention regarding other amenities and facilities which were agreed to be allowed to the petitioner. Likewise there was no mention about protecting his pension or meeting out expenses of telephone at his residence. Annexure P. 5 contains the terms and conditions of appointment of Shri Nobat Singh Panwar as communicated in the State Government by the Advocate General and requesting the State Government to modify the terms and conditions of the petitioner as agreed by the Chief Minister, i.e. the retainer fee was to be Rs. 6250/- per month, (ii) House Rent Allowance admissible (iii) telephone charges of the telephone installed at his residence to be met by the State, (iv) Conveyance Allowance of Rs. 500/- per month as given to Shri Nobat Singh, and (v) the petitioner to be allowed to draw his pension in addition to retainer fee. The petitioner was also to be appointed as Assistant Advocate General with effect from December 10, 1990 as he was allowed to work as such in the office of the Advocate General after the Chief Minister had passed the order. To the same effect is the letter Annexure P.6 written by the Advocate General to the State Government. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated June 28, 1991 (Annexure P.8). It was on July 15, 1991 (after the new Government had taken over) that pay of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Advocate General was fixed by the Government as retainer fee of Rs. 4,500/- per mensem subject to the condition that the total emoluments from all sources including pension would not exceed Rs. 7,600/- per mensem as laid down in Rule 7.18 of the Civil Services Rules, Volume II. This fixation of pay was not in accordance with the order passed by the Chief Minister. Thus the petitioner served a legal notice Annexure P. 10 on the State making claim as detailed above.

(3.) On notice of motion having been issued, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, inter-alia, asserting that the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment letter and joined the service. Subsequently he could not challenge the same. On merits broad facts are admitted that earlier the petitioner was working as District Attorney in the office of the Advocate General and after his voluntary retirement he was re- employed as Assistant Advocate General. Thus he was not entitled to any other benefits or facilities except those which were mentioned in the appointment letter. Reference has been made to Civil Services Rules that he was not entitled to House Rent Allowance etc. as he was not regularly appointed against the post of Assistant Advocate General and even on such a post telephone facilities were not available at the residence. At times it is stated that it was a contractual appointment and the facilities which were allowed to Shri Nobat Singh and Shri H. S. Gill were not permissible to the petitioner as they were appointed Deputy Advocates General. Replication has been filed by the petitioner to the written statement, inter alia, reiterating his stand that his terms and conditions were finalised by the Chief Minister and he was entitled to all the benefits as described above on the same terms and conditions which were applicable to Shri Nobat Singh.