K L KOHLI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners joined the Haryana Prosecution Department as Assistant District Attorney, Grade-I. Later on, this post was designated as Deputy District Attorney. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted as District Attorney on 1.2.1984 and posted in the C.I.D. Wing of the Police Department. Petitioner No. 1 retired from service from 1.11.1988. Petitioner No. 2 was promoted as District Attorney on 16.2.1984 and posted in the Police Headquarters. Petitioner No. 2 retired from service from 1.2.1989. In the Prosecution Department, when the pay scales were revised w.e.f. 1.4.1979, the District Attorneys who were posted in the districts were allowed a special pay of Rs. 150/- per month, whereas the District Attorneys working in offices, like Advocate-General, Haryana, Excise and Taxation Department and like- wise, were allowed a special pay of Rs. 200/- per month. Petitioners who had been posted in offices were given special pay of Rs. 150/- per month. Subsequently, with the revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the special pay was doubled, meaning thereby that those who were getting special pay of Rs. 150/- were to be paid Rs. 300/- per month and those getting Rs. 200/- were to be paid Rs. 400/-per month. Petitioners made representation to the respondents stating therein that their counter-parts who are working in the offices like Advocate-General, Haryana, Excise and Taxation Department and like-wise, are getting special pay of Rs. 200/-per month, whereas they have been discriminated and are being paid special pay at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. Their representation was finally decided on 15.3.1989 (Annexure P-7) and the special pay of these two District Attorneys (petitioners) who were working in the CID Wing of Police Department and the Police Headquarters respectively was increased from Rs. 300/- per month to Rs. 400/- per month with immediate effect, meaning thereby that the relief was given to the petitioners when they had already retired from service. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they were entitled to special pay at the rate of Rs. 200/- w.e.f. 1.2.1984 and 16.2.1984 respectively, i.e. with effect from the date they were promoted as District Attorneys, and posted in the offices of C.I.D. Wing and C.P.O. of Police Headquarters respectively, and at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month with effect from 1.1.1986, when the special pay of the similarly circumstanced persons were increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/- per month.

(2.) In reply, counsel for the respondents has stated that the case of the petitioners cannot be equated with the District Attorneys who are working in the offices of Advocate-General, Haryana, Excise and Taxation Department or other offices, because it was for the Department to fix the special pay of the District Attorney(s) working under it, and the Department of C.I.D. and the Department of C.P.O. Haryana had fixed the special pay of the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month and, thus, the entitlement of the petitioners was to that extent alone.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel at some length, I am of the view that the stand of the State cannot be accepted. Petitioners were not directly recruited in the Department of C.I.D. and the Department of C.P.O. Haryana, but were the employees of the Haryana Prosecution Department. As revealed, all District Attorneys working in the districts were getting special pay of Rs. 150/- per month, but on increase, started getting Rs. 300/- per month, whereas the District Attorneys working in the offices were getting Rs. 200/- per month as special pay, but on increase, started getting Rs. 400/- per month. This anomaly was pointed out by the petitioners and it was on their representation that the anomaly was removed and order dated 15.3.1989 (Annexure P-7) was passed vide which special pay of the District Attorneys working in the offices of C.I.D. and the C.P.O. Haryana, was enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/- per month, with immediate effect. No meaningful relief was given to the petitioners as at the time when the said order was passed, the petitioners already stood retired from service. Once the anomaly was corrected, then it was required to be corrected from the date it existed, i.e. the date on which petitioners were promoted as District Attorneys; otherwise, there would be no meaning in removing an anomaly from a date subsequent to the date when the pay scales were revised. Thus, in my view, the writ petition deserves to succeed.