Harjeet Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

IN T

Harjeet Singh an

State of Punjab a

CORAM: HO

*** Present : Mr. Mr.

*** AMAN CHAUD

1.

Pray to grant the statu

2.

Lea Junior Technicia

29.12.2015 wher being paid conso

17.07.2020. The Sharma and oth connected cases, dismissed on 22 covers the case despite best effo and draw out any contrary law and

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGAR

CW

Dat nd others

Versus

and others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN ** Rashpinder Singh, Advocate for Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab. ** DHARY, J. (ORAL) yer made in the present petition utory pay scale. arned counsel submits that the an in February, 2021, pursuant rein also the scale as per the rule olidated pay of Rs.19,900/- in t e issue has already been decid hers vs. State of Punjab and a , on 13.09.2024, against which e .05.2024 so also SLP No.1158 of the petitioners on all fours orts has been unable to controv y distinctive aspects in the aforem d the same read thus:- "8. It is a settled principle well as the pay scale is to be rules governing the servic

JAB & HARYANA RH WP-27226-2023 (O&M) te of decision: 05.02.2025

...Petitioners

...Respondents N CHAUDHARY r the petitioners. is for directing the respondents petitioners were appointed as to the Advertisement No.6 of es was mentioned while they are terms of the Instructions dated ded by this Court in Saurabh another, CWP-15896-2023 and even LPA No.1277 of 2024 was of 2025, on 20.01.2025, which s, which learned State counsel ert regards the factual position mentioned judgment or cite any of law that the appointment as e given in accordance with the

respondents concedes the fac are applicable upon the petiti Professor, the pay scale env 67,000/ + 8600/- Grade Pay petitioners should have been of Assistant Professor as envi

¶9Further, with regard to th for the respondents that when Instructions of the State date operation, hence, the petiti benefit of pay only as per the it may be noticed that merely issued Instructions dated 17 overwrite the 2016 Rules g settled principle of law tha between the Instructions a service, the 2016 Rules wil dated 17.07.2020, hence, onc have supremacy over the Ins petitioners are held entitled fo 67,000/- + ₹8600/- Grade Pa Assistant Professor as envis cannot be denied the said be merely that contradictory I have been issued by the Sta Rules are amended to be in c dated 17.07.2020, the Instruc be given effect to till the said with the 2016 Rules governin

¶10At this stage, learned submits that the Instruction supplement the Rules. The Instructions to supplement Instructions will only operate by the 2016 Rules governing which 2016 Rules are silent.

¶11In the present petitions, question has been described it cannot be said that by the respondents were suppleme Instructions dated 17.07.2020 qua the pay scale of the p working and hence, said I cannot be made operational ti

¶12Even otherwise, in case accepted that after 17.07.2

17.07.2020 will operate the violated their own Instructio

ct that as per 2016 Rules, which ioners qua the post of Assistant visaged therein is Rs.37,400 – y. That being the position, the given the pay scale of the post isaged under the 2016 Rules. he argument of learned counsel n the posts were advertised, the ed 17.07.2020 were already in ioners have been granted the e Instructions dated 17.07.2020, y that the respondent-State had

7.07.2020, the same will not governing the service. It is a at in case, there is a conflict and the Rules governing the ll prevail over the Instructions ce under the 2016 Rules which structions dated 17.07.2020, the or the pay scale of ₹ ₹ 37,400 – ay while working on the post of saged under 2016 Rules, they enefit of pay under 2016 Rules Instructions dated 17.07.2020 ate. Until and unless the 2016 conformity with the Instructions ctions dated 17.07.2020 cannot d Instructions remain in conflict ng the service. counsel for the respondents ns have only been issued to State has a power to issue the Rules. The supplement e in a field which is not covered the service or on the aspect qua , the pay scale of the post in in the 2016 Rules itself, hence, Instructions dated 17.07.2020, enting the Rules. Rather the 0 are contrary to the 2016 Rules post on which petitioners are Instructions dated 17.07.2020 ill 2016 Rules are amended. the plea of the respondents is 2020, the Instructions dated en also the respondents have ons dated 17.07.2020 qua the

promotions which have been Professor. It is a conceded fa to the post of Assistant Prof the petitioners in 2021, hav envisaged under 2016 Rules, pick and choose as to wh applicable or the Instructio applicable.

¶13The scenario in the p appointees to the post of A appointment of the petitioner the post as envisaged und promotees who have been p of the petitioners, the Instruct been made applicable on them according to the pay scale me clear case of pick and choos employees and Instructions cannot be permitted.

¶14Hence, once the 2016 Rul have a statutory force, are particular pay scale for the po and have not been amended s applicable by ignoring the which are contrary to 2016 R directed to grant the petition under 2016 Rules i.e. Rs.37,4 Pay.

¶15As in CWP No. 20454-have been appointed as Assoc the Advertisement dated 2 covered by the decision rend scale of the Associate Profes 2016 Rules to mean Rs.37,4 Pay, which is not being exten

¶16Keeping in view the ab allowed. The respondents are the pay scale which they are from the date of their direc will also be entitled for ar performed the duties for the of their direct appointment. L be extended to the petitioners from the date of receipt of cop

¶17At this stage, learned cou that though the petitioners ha in view the fact that they are as entitled to them under 201

n made to the post of Assistant ct that the employees promoted fessor after the appointment of e been given the pay scale as , hence, the respondents cannot hen the 2016 Rules will be ons dated 17.07.2020 will be present cases is that all the Assistant Professor prior to the rs are enjoying the pay scale of er 2016 Rules and even the promoted after the appointment tions dated 17.07.2020 have not m and their pay has been fixed entioned in 2016 Rules. This is e to apply 2016 Rules to some s to other employees, which les governing the service which operational and prescribes a ost being held by the petitioners so far, the same has to be made Instructions dated 17.07.2020, Rules, hence the respondents are ners the pay scale as envisaged 400 – 67,000/- + 8600/- Grade -2024, some of the petitioners ciate Professors in pursuance to

2.05.2022, they will also be dered here-inbefore, as the pay ssor has also been described in 400 – 67,000/- + 8900/- Grade nded to them. bove, the present petitions are e directed to give the petitioners e entitled under the 2016 Rules t appointment. The petitioners rrears of salary as they have post in question from the date Let the arrears be calculated and s within a period of eight weeks py of this order unsel for the petitioners submit ave claimed interest but keeping only interested in the pay scale 16 Rules, they are not pressing

3.

The

05.02.2025 ashok

Wh

Wh

their claim for the grant of int

¶18All the petitions are allow

¶19Pending miscellaneous a disposed of.

¶20A photocopy of this or connected cases."

e petition is disposed of in terms

ether speaking

: ether reportable

:

terest. wed in above terms. application, if any, also stands rder be placed on the file of of Saurabh Sharma (supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY)