Bdpo Barara Samiti v. Som Nath and Ors

LAPITA BANERJI, J.(ORAL)

CM-9106-C-2024 This is an application for condonation of delay of 338 days in re-filing the appeal. Perused the grounds. For the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 338 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM-9107-C-2024 This is an application for condonation of delay of 90 days in

Pe

Fo and delay of 90 Main case

T Judge, Ambala

2.

V dismissed the dated May 10,

3.

T in favour of th the plaintiff w pay scales afte was held entit Progressions ( along with reti along with int plaintiff was h judgment of M

4.

T

(i) T Panchay

erused the grounds. or the grounds mentioned in the a 0 days in filing the appeal is condo This is an appeal from the order a on February 21, 2023. Vide the impugned order, the lea appeal that was directed again 2022 passed by the Civil Judge he Civil Judge (Junior Division) he plaintiff with costs against th was entitled to the benefits of firs er completion of 10 and 20 years tled to the benefits of first, seco

(ACPs) upon completion of 10 iral benefits like leave encashm erest as per the Haryana & Punj held entitled to interest @ 6% May 10, 2022 till the entire realisa he facts in the plaint briefly are a he plaintiff was appointed as yat Samiti, Barara provisional application, the same is allowed oned. passed by the learned District arned District Judge, Ambala nst the judgment and decree (Junior Division), Ambala. ), Ambala had decreed the suit he defendants. It was held that st and second higher standard s of service. Also, the plaintiff ond and third Assured Career , 20 and 30 years of service ment and salary of five months njab State Services Rules. The per annum from the date of ation. as follows:- a Sweeper by the appellant-lly on December 07, 1976.

Thereaft continuo defenda During promoti standard higher s plaintiff third AC Policy o General was giv Haryana defenda

(ii) Dur encashm 2004 to after a d @ 12%

5.

In was urged tha which was an plaintiff prior

fter, he was regularized vide a le ously worked under defendant nt No.3-Block Panchayat, Sam the entire period of service, the on, whereas he was entitled to d pay scale after completion of 1 standard pay scale after completi f should also have been given CPs on completion of 10, 20 and of ACPs of 1998 (as amended). T Revision Pay Scales of 1986, 1 ven to all other employees A a. All the representations ma nts concerned, went in vain. ring his retirement, the plaintiff ment benefits, nor salary for las June 2004. His salary for last fiv delay of 10 years in 2014. The pl per annum for the inordinate del n the joint written statement filed at the plaintiff was an employ autonomous body. The entire b to his retirement and nothing fu etter dated July 10, 1979 and No.2 (appellant herein) and miti Barara till his retirement. e plaintiff was not given any o the benefits of first higher 10 years of service and second on of 20 years of service. The benefits of first, second and d 30 years of service under the The plaintiff was not given the 996 and 2006 while the same Ambala Cadre as well as in ade by the plaintiff to the f was neither given the leave st five months from February ve months of service was paid laintiff had prayed for interest lay in release of such salary. d by defendants No.1 and 2, it yee of the Panchayat Samiti, benefits had been given to the

him. Therefore plaintiff.

6.

D urged that the therefore, the b The extent of matter of recor

7.

T hereunderbelow "1. Whe alleged,

¶2Wheth

¶3Wheth

¶4Wheth own act

¶5Wheth has conc

¶6Wheth

¶7Wheth

¶8Relief

8.

T to the judgmen Hanuman Vs discussed the

e, the suit was required to be dis Defendant No.3 had filed separate e plaintiff was not absorbed by benefits prayed for by the plain f service rendered by the plaint rd. he issues framed by the T w:- ether the plaintiff is entitled to t on the ground mentioned in the her the suit is not maintainable i her the plaintiff has no cause of her the plaintiff is stopped from and conduct? her plaintiff has not come to the cealed three and material facts f her suit is bad for mis-joinder of her the suit is barred by time? f." he learned Trial Court while de nt of this Hon'ble High Court in . State of Haryana and other provisions of Section 33(c) of t smissed with costs against the e written statement and it was y the State Government and ntiff were inadmissible in law. tiff was admitted as being a Trial Court are reproduced the decree for declaration, as plaint? in the present form? action to file the present suit? m filing the present suit by his e Court with clean hands and from the Court? f parties? ciding the first issue, referred CWP No.7778 of 2013 titled rs decided on 16.01.2020 and

and Zila Parish the employees to subscriptio conditions of service prescri

9.

Se Services Rule provisions of t are applicable any other Rule reproduced her "15(1) other ru Parisha the prov time to t of the af

P they occ Samiti o Punjab deemed

(2) The referred the subs adapt th

hads Act, 1961 (for short 'the 19 s of the Panchayat Samiti were e on on their behalf for pensio service were not more favour ibed for a Government servant. ection 15 of the Punjab Panchay es, 1965 (for short 'the 1965 the Punjab Civil Services Rules a in case a matter is not expressly e framed under the 1961 Act. Se reunderbelow:- In matters not expressly c ules framed under the Punjab ds Act, 1961, the members of the visions of the Punjab Civil Serv time in so far as they are not in foresaid Act, and the rules made Provided that for words "Gove cur in the Punjab Civil Services or Zila Parishad, as the case m Panchayat Samitis and Zila P to have been constituted respect competent authority may constr d to in sub-rule(1) above with su stance thereof as may be nece hem to the matter before such au 961 Act'). As per said Section, entitled to pension or entitled on or gratuity provided the rable than the conditions of

yat Samitis and Zila Parishads 5 Rules') provides that the as amended from time to time y covered under 1965 Rules or ection 15 of the 1965 Rules is overed by these rules or any Panchayat Samitis and Zila e service shall be governed by vices Rules as amended from consistent with the provisions thereunder: ernment Servants" wherever Rules the words "Panchayat may be", and "member of the Parishads Service" shall be tively. rue the provisions of the rules uch adaptations not affecting essary or proper in order to thority:

P with wh referred such ref

10.

Se 13 of the P Amendment) Court held tha the same, the employees of defendants. Th benefits of the 10 and 20 yea of 10, 20 and on the salary o

11.

A defendants and reliefs already

12.

T on record, the Section 33(c) o well as the fac of the 1973 Ac service of the

Provided that if any doubt arise hich the said rules should be co d to the Government and the de ference shall be final." ection 33 of the 1961 Act stood Punjab Panchayat Samitis an Act, 1973 (for short 'the 1973 at Section 15(1) of the 1965 Rule e Punjab Civil Services Rules Panchayat Samiti. The same herefore, it was held that the pl e first and second higher standard ars of service and first, second a 30 years of service along with h of five months for delayed payme Accordingly, issues No.2 to 7 w d the suit was decreed in favour mentioned hereinabove. he First Appellate Court took in arguments of learned counsel fo of the 1961 Act. Furthermore, Se ct that Section 33 of the 1961 Ac ct was also considered. Therefor e plaintiff was not provinciali es regarding the adaptations onstrued, the matter shall be ecision of the Government on d deleted by virtue of Section d Zila Parishads (Haryana 3 Act'). Therefore, the Trial es is applicable and relying on were also applicable to the was also not denied by the laintiff was entitled to all the d pay scales on completion of and third ACPs on completion his retiral benefits and interest ent of 10 years. were also decided against the r of the plaintiff, granting the nto consideration the material or the parties and provisions of ection 15 of the 1965 Rules as ct being deleted by Section 13 re, the argument that since the sed, he was not entitled to

pensionary ben the learned Tr judgment/orde

13.

T the plaintiff b benefits given provides for th no dispute as t relying on the to the employe 1961 Act or t given under th the 1961 Act c

14.

T passed by the Court and doe or pointed out the pension as granted to the defendant No.3

15.

A

nefits, was held to be unsustain rial Court had rightly recorded er and it was upheld. he short question of law that fall being an employee of Panchaya to Government servants. Rule he applicability of the Punjab C to the said Rule governing the fi said Rule the applicability of th ees of the Samiti as long as they the 1965 Rules, cannot be dou he Punjab Civil Services Rules as can be and should be granted to t his Court has considered bot trial Court and the judgment p es not find any infirmity in the why Section 15 of the 1965 Ru s granted under the Punjab Civ e plaintiff. It is noted that no a

¶3Accordingly, this Court finds no a

nable. Hence, it was held that the findings in the impugned ls for consideration is whether at Samiti was entitled to the 15(1) of the 1965 Rules itself Civil Services Rules. There is ield as on date. Consequently, he Punjab Civil Services Rules y are not inconsistent with the ubted. Therefore, the benefits s long as not inconsistent with the employees. th the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate same. It has not been argued ules is not applicable and why vil Services Rules cannot be appeal has been preferred by

the concurren No.2229 of 20

16.

Pe

JANUARY 14 Prince

Whether speak Whether report

nt findings of both the Courts 024 is dismissed. ending application(s), if any, sha

4, 2025

king/reasoned :

table :

below. Consequently, RSA all also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI)

JUDGE

RSA-2229-2024(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 RSA-2229-2024(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 14, 2025 o THEoBLOCKoDEVLOPMENToANDoPANCHAYAToOFFICER,oBARARAo SAMITIoo o o o o o o …APPELLANT Versus SOMoNATHoANDoOTHERS …RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.