(O&M)Nirmal Parmar v. State of Haryana and Anr

IN T

Ms. Nirmal Parm

State of Haryana

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Mr

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The dated 17.02.200 whereby the su appeal preferred dismissed vide Additional Distr

2.

Bri Division), Rohta

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

-.-

RS

Da mar

Versus a and another

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Sunil Panwar, Advocate the appellant. r. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana. -.-

HARMA, J.

e present appeal is filed against 00 passed by the learned Civil uit for declaration filed by the d against the said judgment and judgment and decree dated 2 rict Judge, Rohtak. ief facts of the case as mention ak in suit for declaration are as u "The plaintiff feeling aggri vide letter no.ME-1/95/A-V minimised the plaintiff's pay 3200 already given to her, in 31 dated 13.3.91, who wa

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2597-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision :01.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA the impugned judgment and dec l Judge (Junior Division), Roh appellant was dismissed and d decree dated 17.02.2000 was a

25.01.2001 passed by the learn ned before the Civil Judge (Jun under:- eved by the act of defendant w V/19742-47 dated 28.11.95 h y scale of Rs.2000-3500 to 20 n terms of letter по. ME-1/91/23 as appointed as Orthopist-cu

cree htak also ned nior who ave 329-um-

Optometriest in the pay scale to 2000-3500 as per rules P scale of Rs.2000-3200 in ex further alleged that the authority to change the rule revised the pay scale of Rs. Rs. 2000-3200 and the opportunity of being heard that as per rules 1987 Group categorised in the notificatio presumed the plaintiff's post Mrs. Parveen Oberoi has Hence, there is discriminatio 80 CPC was given to the def be passed in favour of plai draw pay in pay scale of defendants in minimising pa 3200 is illegal, null and void

¶2On the other hand, statement by taking prelimi ground that suit is not maint and non-joinder of necessa standi and plaintiff is estopp further alleged that the pay granted to Group 'B' empl

e of Rs.800-1600 which was revi Punjab, 1987 and there is no p xistence in Punjab Rules, 1987 a Department was not compet es as the Financial Department 800-1600 to 2000-3500 instead defendants have not given a to the plaintiff and further alleg p B and C have not been separa on rather the defendants suo-m as Group C category Class III a been presumed as 'B' Catego on for which a notice under sect efendants but to no effect. A dec intiff that she has a legal right Rs. 2000-3500 and the action ay scale of Rs.2000-3500 to 20 d. defendants have filed their writ inary objections inter alia on tainable, suit is bad for mis-join ary parties, plaintiff has no loc ped by her own act and conduct a y scale of Rs.2000-3500 have b loyees whereas, the plaintiff is

ised pay and tent has d of any ged tely moto and ory. tion cree t to n of tten nder cus-and een

Group 'C' employee where employees. On merit, admitte Rs.800-1600 were revised a Rs.2000-3200 which was la Rs.2000-3200 to 2000-3500 respect of Gazetted Group employees. But the modified inadvertently granted to the

13.3.91, which has rightly b Group 'C' employee and fu drawing the pay scale of Rs. as Orthoptist-cum-Optometr pay scale of Punjab State Govt. Employees. However, Officers from Group 'C' em 3200 was modified to Rs.2 Group 'B' officers. It has fur alongwith Sh. S.P.S. Rathore Optometriest by a standin constituted for the recruitme Smt. Parveen Obroi was sele the State Govt. Thus, the p class-III employees and Smt Optometriest whose name w selection and appointed by

eas, Sh. S.P.S.Rathor is Group ed that w.e.f. 1.1.86 the pay scale nd plaintiff was given pay scale ater on modified and was fixed in terms of letter dated 23.8.90 'B' Officers and not for group d pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w e plaintiff in terms of order da been withdrawn as the plaintiff urther alleged that the plaintiff 2000-3200 from the date of join riest and further alleged that is not applicable to the Harya in order to distinguish Group mployees the pay scale of Rs.20 2000-3500 in respect of gazet rther been alleged that the plain e was appointed as Orthoptist-cu ng selection committee which ent of Class-III employees where ected as Class-II gazetted officer plaintiff and Sh. S.P.S.Rathore t. Parveen Obroi, Orthoptist-cu was recommended by the HPSC y the Govt, is a gazetted Cla

p'B' e of e of d as 0 in 'C' was ated ff is ff is ning ana 'B' tted ntiff um-is eas, r by are um-for ass-

3.

Fro

4.

Aft learned Civil J appellant. Relev

II(Group'B') Officer draw 3500.Thus, the plaintiff is Rs.2000-3500 being the Cla prayed for dismissal of the su om the pleadings of the parties, f

¶1Whether the pla the pay scale of Rs.200

¶2Whether the ac pay of the plaintiff fr 2000-3200 is illegal, n

¶3Whether the suit

¶4Whether the su joinder of necessary pa

¶5Whether the pla present suit?OPD.

¶6Whether the pla by her own act and con

¶7Relief." ter hearing both the parties and Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak vant portion of the same is repro "7.After hearing the a counsel for the plain defendant, I have obs plaintiff was revised f

wing the pay-scale of Rs.20 not entitled for the pay scale ass-III(Group 'C') employee. Th uit. following issues were framed:- aintiff is entitled to draw the pay 00-3500 as per rules?OPP. ct of the defendant in reducing rom pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 null and void?OPP. t is not maintainable?OPD. uit is bad for mis-joinder or n arties?OPD. aintiff has no locus-standi to file aintiff is estopped to file the pres nduct?OPD. the perusing the whole record, k dismissed the suit filed by oduced hereunder:- arguments advanced by both the ntiff as well as Govt. Pleader served that admittedly, the scale from 800-1600 to 2000-3200 wh

e of hus, y in 0 to non-sent e ld. for e of

was later on revised f the defendants vide le the pay scale of Rs.200

¶8The perusal given was appointed as

21.9.87 whereas, the p Ex.P4 reveals that the different occasions. Ex Finance Department

29.4.87 also shows t plaintiff was Rs.800-1 2000-3200.

¶9The defendants the same document a

23.8.90 in respect of Haryana Govt. Gazet which the pay scale w referred and it has b certain discrepancies

1.1.86 were pointed o and also by some Depa modify the pay scale Thus, it is crystal clea scale of the plaintiff h 2000-3200 w.e.f. 1.5.

from 2000-3200 to 2000-3500 a etter dated 28.11.95 has minimi 00-3500 to 2000-3200. to Ex.P1 shows that the plain Orthoptist-cum-Optometriest perusal given to Ex.P2, Ex.P3 a e plaintiff was given increments Ex.P6 photo copy of Haryana Go t Regulations Notification da the fact that initial pay scale 1600 which was later on revised have placed on file Ex.D1 which s Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 is letter da f revision of pay scale wherein tte Notification dated 29.4.87 v was revised w.e.f. 1.1.86 has b been also mentioned in Ex.P7 t s in the pay scale revised w. out by some employees associat artments and it has been decided of some of the post w.e.f. 1.5. ar that by virtue of Ex.P7 the p has been modified and minimised 90 whereas, the plaintiff has

and ised ntiff on and s on ovt. ated e of d to h is ated vide een that .e.f. tion d to .90. pay d to

placed on file any c evidence to show that of Rs.2000-3500 ins allegedly minimised by

¶10Whereas, on th alleged that the plain whereas the pay sca Group 'B' employees Reckoner for pay and 1987 reveals that the p w.e.f. 1.1.86 to all Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 1 defendants has been plaintiff to prove that State Government and pay scale of Rs.2000-3 through the docume available on record, I plaintiff being Group the pay scale of Rs. 2 given to her but lat distinguished the cate group 'C' employees, minimised to Rs.2000 failed to prove that she

cogent and reliable document t she was entitled for the pay sc stead of 2000-3200 which w y the defendants. e other hand, the defendants h ntiff is a group 'C' Govt. emplo le of Rs.2000-3500 was given s. The perusal given to Rea d allowances and revised pay ru pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 gran categories has been modified .5.90. Thus, the stand taken by corroborated and it was on t she is group 'B' employees of d therefore, entitled to the modif 3500 w.e.f. 1.5.90. Thus, after go entary as well as oral evide I arrive at the conclusion that 'C' employees was not entitled 2000-3500 although, it was ear ter on when the defendants h egories of Group 'B' gazetted a the pay scale of the plaintiff w 0-3200 and plaintiff has misera e was entitled to draw the pay sc

tary cale was ave oyee n to ady ules, nted d to fied oing ence for rlier ave and was ably

5.

The

17.02.2000 was judgment and de SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea erred in decidin by both the Cou record and praye

7.

Per and decree and c

8.

I h record of this ca ANALYSIS OF

9.

A Orthoptist-cum-dated 21.09.198 College, Rohtak Rs.2000-3500 w under Rule 4.7 State of Haryan placed in the

29.4.1987, in sh notification revi

of Rs.2000-3500 theref the plaintiff." e appeal preferred against t s dismissed by the learned Add ecree dated 25.01.2001. Hence, S OF COUNSEL FOR THE PA arned counsel for the appellant s ng issue No.1 and 2. He further c urts below are contrary to law, pe ed for allowing the appeal. r contra, learned State counsel a contends that the same are rightl have heard learned counsel for ase. F RECORD perusal of the record shows -Optometriest in the scale of Rs

¶87Vide letter dated 16.09.199 k, the appellant-plaintiff was g w.e.f. 01.09.1991, raising her of Punjab Civil Service Rules, na. Earlier thereto, the plainti scale of Rs.2000-3200, as p hape of Haryana Civil Service ised the pay scales of all the em

efore this issue is answered aga the judgment and decree da itional District Judge, Rohtak v the present appeal. ARTIES submits that both the Courts bel contends that the judgments pas erverse and against the evidence argues on the line of the judgm ly dismissed. the parties and perused the wh that appellant was appointed s.800-1600, vide appointment le 91 issued by the Director Med granted increments in the scale pay from Rs.2181/- to Rs.224 , Vol-I, Part-I, as applicable to ff-appellant was held entitled er government notification da (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987, wh mployees drawing salary in the p

inst ated vide low ssed e on ment hole as etter ical e of 40/- and ated hich

scale of Rs.800-3200 was latero falling under Gr Rs.2000-3200. E scale of Rs.200 'B'employees. T annual increme order dated 28. the plaintiff-app

1.5.1900. There been put in sca Rs.2180/- in the increment on 1 dated 16.9.199

12.9.1991 had p

01.09.1991, rais from the Finan Medical Educat Sharma PGIMS grade 2000-350 Rs.2000-3200 b order dated 7.9 Rohtak (Ex.D-7 appellant-plainti any show-cause

-1600 to Rs.2000-3200 w.e.f. 1. on modified vide letter of Harya roup 'B' with pay-scale of Rs.8 Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-3 were issued 00-3200 to Rs.2000-3500 w.e. The plaintiff-appellant, by virtu nt in the scale of Rs.2000-60-

11.1995 of the Director, Bhagw pellant was put in scale of Rs by withdrawing order dated 13.3 ale of Rs.2000-60-2200-75-290 e scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. .9.1990, raising her pay to Rs.

¶1The Director, Medical Co placed the plaintiff-appellant in th sing her pay from Rs.2181/- to R ncial Commissioner and Secre ion Department, Haryana, addre , Rohtak, simply stated that if th 00 as per government instructio be ordered for her and S.P.S. R

9.1995 in the order dated 28.1 7), withdrawing the order dat iff had been put in the pay scal e notice to the appellant-plaintif

1.1986. The said scale of Rs.20 ana Government in respect of po 800-1600 as revised in pay scale on 23.8.1990, modifying the p .f. 1.5.1990, in respect of Gro ue of Exhibit P-4 had been gran -2200-75-2900-EB-100-3500. V wat Dyal Sharma, PGIMS, Roht s.2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200 w.

3.1991, by virtue of which, she h 00-EB-100-3500, fixing her pay

01.05.1990, with the next date 2180/- from Rs.2120/-, vide le ollege, Rohtak, vide order da he pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w. Rs. 2240/-. The order dated 7.9.19 etary to Government Health essed to the Director, Bhagwat D he appellant was not eligible for ons dated 23.9.1990, then scale Rathore. The reference of afores

1.1995 of Director B.D.S.PGIM ted 13.3.1991(Ex.D-5), by wh le of Rs.2000-3500 without giv ff and minimising her pay scale

osts e of pay-oup nted Vide tak, .e.f. had y at e of etter ated .e.f. and Dyal e of said MS, hich ving

Rs.2000-3200, drawn salary in Court.

10.

The without any sho The benefit gra Further a perus plaintiff (Ex.P-Rs.2675/- w.e.f. of increment as subsequently fix 8500-EB-10500 the pay scale an notice and witho law.

11.

A p post and cadre Oberoi had bee observing that reason that she the Governmen justifiable. Ther appointed as a G Orthoptist-cum-post held by a

retrospectively w.e.f. 1.5.1990 the scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e. e emoluments of the appellant-p ow-cause notice and without any anted to the employees could al of the record shows that extr 8) also shows that the appell . 1.1.1986 in the revised pay sca

1.10.1987. It also shows that th xed at Rs.10,500/- w.e.f. 1.1.19 0, with next date of increment on nd emoluments of the appellan out following the principles of n perusal of the record further sho and in the same scale i.e. Rs en allowed to continue in the her case is different from that was selected by the Public Serv nt and, therefore, was a Gazett re is nothing on record to sho Gazetted Officer or that she belo -Optomatrist held by her is Gaze appellant-plaintiff is class-III o

0, after the appellant-plaintiff h f.1.5.1990, is not acceptable to t plaintiff was reduced retrospectiv y opportunity of being heard to h not be withdrawn retrospective tract of Service Book of appella lant-plaintiff was given salary ale of Rs.2000-3200, with next d he pay of the appellant-plaintiff w 996 in the pay scale of 6500-2 n 01.10.1997. The order minimis nt-plaintiff without any show ca natural justice is bad in the eyes ows that an employee on the sa s.800-1600, namely, Smt. Parv e pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, t of the appellant-plaintiff, for vice Commission and appointed ted Officer of 'B' category is ow that Smt. Parveen Oberoi w ongs to 'B' category or that the p etted or Class 'B' and that the sa or 'C' category post. There is

had this vely her. ely. ant-of date was 200-sing ause s of ame een by d by not was post

evidence on rec appellant-plainti Government or plaintiff and Sm 'C' category. CONCLUSION

12.

The post held by app of pay was init Services (Revis same post of Or

13.

The same cadre by m work is the sam was gazetted or not of 'B' Catego in his cross-exam Optomatrist is o notice was giv Rs.2000-3500 an

14.

In v allowed. The ju the learned Cou decreed in her whereby the pay

cord to show that the post Ortho iff and Smt. Parveen Oberoi rder or notification categorising mt. Parveen Oberoi as Gazetted o N:- e evidence on record further sho pellant-plaintiff and Smt. Parvee tially same i.e. 800-1600, befo ed Pay) Rules, 1987 and that th rthoptist-cum-Optomatrist i.e. in e action of respondents in trea minimising the pay of one is dis me. There is nothing on record r of B Category and that the pos ory. Rather Naresh Chander, wh mination that there is no letter by of Group 'B' or that of Group 'C' ven to appellant-plaintiff befo nd minimising the same to Rs.20 view of the above, I find merit in udgments and decrees dated 17.0 urts below are set aside and the su r favour. Letter No.ME-1/95 y scale of the appellant-plaintiff

optist-cum-Optomatrist held by were different or there was g the post held by the appella r non-Gazetted or as 'B' category ows that the nature of duties of en Oberoi were the same, their sc ore revision by the Haryana C hey were initially appointed on the same cadre. ating two persons appointed in criminatory, since the nature of to show that Smt. Parveen Obe st of Orthoptist-cum-Optomatris ho was examined as DW-1 admit y which the post of Orthoptist-cu ' category. He also admitted that re withdrawing the pay-scale 000-3200 vide order Ex.D-7. n the present appeal and the sam

02.2000 and 25.01.2001 passed uit filed by the appellant-plaintif 5/A-V/19742-47 dated 28.11.19 has been minimized from Rs.20

any ant-y or cale Civil eroi, st is tted um-t no of me is d by

3500 to Rs.2000 pay scale which

15.

Dec

16.

Pen

October 1, 2024 A.Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r

0-3200 is set aside and the appe h was revised to Rs.2000-3500 as cree-sheet be drawn accordingly nding applications, if any, also st

(SUDEEP

J speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No

ellant-plaintiff is held entitled to s per Punjab rules, 1987. y. tand disposed of. PTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng