Gurdev Singh v. State of Haryana

IN T

Gurdev Singh State of Haryana

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

22.12.1998 pass and decree dat whereby the su defendant in wi illegal and again mandatory injun for the aforesaid and the appeal

26.07.2000.

2.

joined the servic

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da

VERSUS a

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the a r. Harish Nain, AAG Haryana. -.-

HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is filed again sed by the learned Civil Judge (J ted 26.07.2000 passed by the uit seeking a decree for declar ithholding his annual incremen nst the principles of natural jus nction directing the defendants t d period, was dismissed vide jud l filed against the same was e case of the appellant before th ce as conductor with Haryana Ro

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-273-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 01.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA appellant. nst the judgment and decree da Jr. Division), Ambala and judgm learned District Judge, Amb ration to the effect that action nt since the year 1971 be decla stice, with a consequential relief to release all the annual increme dgment and decree dated 22.12.19 s dismissed vide judgment da he learned Trial Court was that oadways in October 1969 in the p

ated ment ala, n of ared f of ated t he

scale of Rs.110 year 1971. In Haryana and ba Thereafter, pay the plaintiff wa basic salary a plaintiff/appella but to no av defendant/respo with a conseque

3.

appointment of 110-225. It plaintiff/appella from Rs.110/-. w.e.f. 06.09.197

13.12.1978, re plaintiff/appella monthly basic p 31 disciplinary increments wer plaintiff/appella

4.

On the learned Tria

-225 and he has not been grant the year 1979, pay scales we asic pay of the plaintiff/appellan scales were revised in the year as fixed at Rs.1050/-. Till date and he has not been grante ant made numerous representatio vail. Finally, a notice dated ondent in this regard. Finding no ential relief of mandatory injunct e respondent-defendant filed th plaintiff/appellant as conductor is averred that first annual ant w.e.f. 21.07.1971, when his m Again, monthly pay of plainti 73 and thereafter, to Rs.122/-a espectively. On revision of ant was fixed at Rs.430/-w.e.f pay of plaintiff/appellant was re y actions were taken against re stopped and the said fact ant. Accordingly, dismissal of sui n the pleadings of the parties, th l Court:-

ted any annual increment since ere revised by the Government nt was fixed at Rs.420/- per mon r 1987 w.e.f 1986 and basic pay e, plaintiff/appellant is drawing d any annual increment. T ons to grant him annual increme

08.10.1995 was issued to o other way, suit seeking declarat tion in this regard was filed. he written statement admitting in the year 1969 in the pay scale increment was granted to monthly pay was raised to Rs.11 ff/appellant was raised to Rs.11 and Rs.126/- w.e.f. 08.10.1975 f pay scales, monthly pay f 02.07.1979. On further revisi evised to Rs.1080/-. In as many plaintiff/appellant, his 41 ann is well within the knowledge it was prayed. he following issues were framed

t of nth. y of his tion e of 14/- 18/- of ion, y as nual e of

¶1inc so,

2.

3.

4.

5.

Aft learned Trial Co the appellant. T " car aga ann wri pla nev of pro den cha Per

Whether the plaintiff is e rements in his pay scale have ill its effect? OPP Whether the suit of the plaint Whether the present Court ha Relief. ter hearing both the parties an ourt vide its judgment dated 22. The relevant portion of the same Having heard the argument refully, I am of the view that ainst the plaintiff. Admittedly, p

¶69The plaintiff has filed presen nual increments since the year itten statement has specifically aintiff were stopped in 31 discipl ver challenged those orders. Th his replication has not specific d there is total evasive denial i oduced on record orders Ex.D1 nied annual increment from tim allenged those orders before erefore, plaintiff is not entitled rusal of orders Ex.D1 to D30 w

entitled to a declaration that legally been with held as alleged tiff is within time? OPP as jurisdiction to try the suit? OP nd perusing the whole record,

12.1998, dismissed the suit filed is reproduced as under:- ts and perusing record of the c this issue deserves to be decid plaintiff is in service since the y nt suit only on 03.01.1996 claim 1971. The defendant in para 2 pleaded that 41 increments of linary proceedings and the plain he plaintiff in corresponding par cally denied the aforesaid posit in this regard. The defendant to Ex.D30 vide which, plaintiff w me to time and the plaintiff has e any competent authority a to any relief claimed in the s would show that most of the tim

d, if PP d by case ded year ming 2 of ntiff ra 2 tion has was not suit. mes,

pla too Mo Sta bus dec from thu

6.

22.12.1998 was judgment dated SUBMISSION

7.

Lea any Enquiry Off upon the appella consideration th is required to be of the enquiry r contentions he h cases of Jagdis Pradesh) [1961 of Punjab [1991 the case of S.L.B Nigam [1993(3)

aintiff was found negligent in pe ok lenient view by only ordering ost of the times, plaintiff was fo ate Government by not issuing s. In view of the above, it is held claration that action of defendan m time to time is either illegal us, decided against plaintiff." e appeal filed by the appellant s also dismissed by the learn

26.07.2000. Hence the present a OF LEARNED COUNSEL FO arned counsel for the appellant fficer major penalty of stoppage ant. He further contends that le he very fact that before imposing e given and the Enquiry Officer report decision of major penalty has relied upon judgments of Ho sh Prasad Saxena Vs. State o AIR (Supreme Court) 1070]; 1 SCC (L&S( 998] and judgmen Bhimte Vs. The Managing Dire ) S.C.T 603.

erforming his duties and authori the stoppage of annual increme found causing financial loss to tickets to passengers travelling d that plaintiff is not entitled to a nt in stopping his annual increme or unconstitutional. Issue No.1 against judgment and decree da ned District Judge, Ambala v appeal. OR THE PARTIES t contends that without appoint of 41 increments has been impo earned Trial Court did not take i g major penalty, show cause not is to be appointed and on the ba y is to be taken. In support of on'ble Supreme Court passed in of Madhya Bharat (now Madh Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. The St nt of Madhya Pradesh High Cour ector, M.P Audyogik Kendra Vi

ities nts. g in any 1 is ated vide ting osed into tice asis his hya tate rt in

8.

Per 41 increments w Haryana the serv (Punishment and minor punishme Rules i.e. The H punishment of w time was brough

19.11.1992. In the judgment o Haryana State,

9.

I h record of this ca

10.

in his cross-exa be conducted in shows that the a

11.

So are concerned, 311(2), which i appellant and c pertain to impos case of the appe

r contra, learned counsel for the was not a major penalty. He fu vices of the employees were gov d Appeal) Rules, 1970 and with ent. He further contends that Haryana Civil Services (Punishm withholding of increment of pay ht under the heading "Major Pen support of his contention, the le f this Court passed in RSA-158 decided on 03.10.2023 have heard learned counsel for ase. e statement of DW-1 Gian Chan amination he has stated that app n his case and he gave it in writi appellant was given many opport far as the judgments cited by th Jagdish Prasad Saxena's case is not applicable to the facts an ases of the Kulwant Singh Gil sition of major penalty, which w ellant.

State contends that the stoppage urther contends that in the State verned by the Punjab Civil Servi hholding of increment of pay wa State of Haryana notified its o ment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. A y with cumulative effect for the f nalties" vide amendment notified arned State counsel has relied up 88-1991, titled as Ram Sarup the parties and perused the wh nd, Clerk, HRO, Ambala shows t ellant never wanted any enquiry ng. A perusal of the record furt tunities of being heard. he learned counsel for the appell e (supra) is the case under Arti nd circumstances of the case of ll (supra) and S.L.Bhimte (sup would also not be applicable in

e of e of ices as a own And first d on pon Vs. hole that y to ther lant icle pra)

12.

covers the prese with cumulative Relevant paragr under:- "5. jud stop pun dep

¶6Ha gov Rul pun own Rul effe Pen App

e judgment relied upon by th ent case wherein the punishmen e effect was granted and the reg raphs of Ram Sarup's case (s

The learned counsel represen dgments passed by the Courts ppage of three increments wi nishment and the same could no partmental inquiry. On the other hand, the learne ryana submits that previously t verned by the Punjab Civil S les, 1970 and withholding of nishment. He further contends n Rules i.e. The Haryana Civil les, 1987 and punishment of w ect for the first time was bro nalties" vide amendment notified

"2. In the Haryana peal) Rules, 1987, in rule 4, in su

(i) Under Heading

the following clause sh

he learned State counsel squar nt of stoppage of three increme gular second appeal was dismiss (supra) are being reproduced h nting the appellant submits that below are not sustainable as ith cumulative effect is a ma ot be ordered in absence of regu ed counsel representing the State the services of the employees w Services (Punishment and Appe f increment of pay was a mi that State of Haryana notified Services (Punishment and Appe withholding of pay with cumula ought under the heading "Ma d on 19.11.1992. a Civil Services (Punishment a ub-rule (1)----g "Minor Penalties", for clause hall be substituted, namely:-

rely sed. here ajor ular e of were eal) inor d its eal) tive ajor

(v),

¶7rep rule CONCLUSION

13.

In v cumulative effe Haryana Civil S punishment of w brought, under

19.11.1992.

14.

In v accordingly, dis

15.

Dec

16.

Pen

October 01, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

(v) withholding

cumulative effec

(ii) Under heading

clause shall be inserte

(v-a) withholdin

cumulative effec Keeping in view the afor presenting the appellant fairly su es of 1970 were applicable. N view of the above punishment o ect was not major punishment Services (Punishment and Appea withholding of pay with cumul the heading 'Major Penaltie view of the above, I do not find smiss the same being devoid of a cree sheet be drawn accordingly nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

of increment of pay without ct" "Major Penalties", the follow ed, namely:- ng of increments of pay with ct." resaid facts, the learned coun ubmits that at the relevant time, f stoppage of three increments w before the year 1992, when al) Rules, 1987 were notified. A lative effect for the first time w es' vide amendment notified any merit in the present appeal any merit. y. tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing

wing nsel with And was