SHASHI BALA SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. No. 2453 of 2014 Prayer in this application is for permission to place on record the replication by way of an affidavit of the petitioner. Prayer granted. Replication is taken on record.

(2.) CWP No. 19870 of 2011

(3.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner initially was appointed on 11.02.1975 on ad -hoc basis as a Clerk in the respondent -department. She continued as such till her services were regularized on 01.01.1980. She was granted the benefit of the 2nd ACP Scale vide order dated 03.04.1997 w.e.f. 01.03.1995. While granting the said benefit, neither the petitioner had misrepresented nor misled the respondents and, therefore, the said benefit having been granted on their own by the respondents cannot now be withdrawn vide the impugned order after a period of more than 14 years. He further contends that prior to the passing of the impugned order, no show cause notice was given or any opportunity of hearing was afforded thus violating the principles of natural justice. He contends that the similarly placed Clerks as the petitioner, namely, S/Shri Rajinder Mohan Wadhwa, Dalbir Singh, Surinder Pal Singh, Lok Nath, Jagat Singh, Ghanshyam Dass, Raghbir Ram and Smt. Santosh Ganghi, who were also granted the benefit of ad -hoc service for the purpose of grant of higher grade under the 1998 Rules, are still availing the said benefit while the petitioner has been discriminated against and has been denied the said benefit. His further contention is that the petitioner was to retire on 30.06.2012 and, therefore, being at the verge of retirement, no recovery could have been effected from the petitioner. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp1 SCC 18 and Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar, 2009 3 SCC 475. He submits that since at the stage of issuing notice by this Court on 21.10.2011, operation of the impugned order dated 03.10.2011 (Annexure P -7) was stayed, now no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. He also contends that the petitioner having retired, the higher scale granted cannot be withdrawn and there can only be cut in pension as per provisions contained in Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. Prayer has thus, been made for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petition.