KARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks protection of pay last drawn by him on being relieved by the U.T., Chandigarh Administration to join service by way of direct recruitment to the post of Manual Assistant in Legal Metrology in the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab. The petitioner was posted as a Manual Assistant in the Legal Metrology, Mohali, Punjab vide appointment letter dated 6th December, 2011. The Chief Engineer, U.T., Chandigarh relieved the petitioner on 23rd December, 2011. However, his lien was kept in the electricity wing of the Engineering Department for a period of two years. While serving the UT Administration, Chandigarh, the petitioner was drawing salary amounting to Rs. 28298/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 10900-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4500/-. In the new post, he was placed in the same scale but in the basic pay of Rs. 16,600/- with grade pay of Rs. 4500/-. He started earning less and made a grievance before the Controller, Legal Metrology, Mohali for an order protecting his pay which he was drawing while serving in the Electricity Department, Chandigarh. The request was refused vide order dated 11th June, 2012 (P-4) informing the petitioner that Government of Punjab in the Finance Personnel, Branch-II had not agreed to the request for pay protection. Since the order was non-speaking, he invoked the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and asked for supply of noting portions of the file where his request for pay protection was dealt with. The file noting were supplied in February, 2012. It is the say of the petitioner that a perusal of the file noting portion reveals that in March, 2012, the office had recommended to the Finance Department for protecting the pay of the petitioner but which request was rejected on 11th May, 2012 on file. The petitioner made a fresh application for supply of information and on receipt of fresh material from the Finance Department, he found that protection of pay of the petitioner could not be accorded since services rendered in Government of Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh is not considered for pay protection on appointment in service of the Government of Punjab. The Administrator relied on the instructions dated 15th November, 2000 which make no mention that pay received for services rendered in U.T., Chandigarh could not be taken into account in fixing pay of employees like the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. D.R.Sharma argues that when the Department recommended the case of the petitioner, it did not deserve to be rejected by the State Government. The instructions dated 15th November, 2000 governing pay protection and fixation of pay of government employees appointed by transfer or by open selection etc. and from one service to another, on direct appointment to a post in the services of the State of Punjab, pay cannot be reduced and deserves to be protected as a measure personal to the petitioner in the initial scale of the new post on which he was directly recruited. The purpose of the instructions is to protect an employee from his pay being reduced on transfer from one Department to the other or by open selection for inter or intra department candidates.

(3.) Mr.Sharma contends that the instructions clearly provide that person concerned may already be drawing pay in the higher pay scale then it is not appropriate to ignore previous service for fixation of pay in the new post or counting the same for time bound promotions. This argument, however, does not satisfy the primary test of pay protection of a foreigner appointed to Punjab Government service should carry pay of past service which can be rendered only in a Department of the Government of Punjab.