AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, for the following reliefs:-
“a. Issue a writ in nature of certiorari quashing the action of the respondents for denying the arrears of differential amount of pre-revision basic pay and revised basic pay for the period of re-employment i.e AY period wef 10 June 2019 till 10 June 2020.
b. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of differential amount of pre-revision basic pay and revised basic pay for the period of re-employment i.e period wef 10 June 2019 till 20June 2020.”
The case of the petitioner is that he superannuated as a Personal Assistant from H.P. Secretariat, on 10.06.2009. Upon his superannuation, on account of the paucity of staff, in terms of Annexure P-1, dated 10.06.2019, the petitioner was re-employed as a Personal Assistant for a period of one year on “last pay drawn, i.e. pay in the pay band + grade pay being drawn at the time of retirement.”. According to the petitioner, in terms of Annexure P-5, dated 13.06.2022, consequent upon the revision of the pay scales of HP Government employees, with the effect from 01.01.2016, vide notification dated 03.01.2022, the pay of 35 Officers/Officials, who had retired/expired in the year 2019, was fixed in the revised pay structure. This also included the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed with effect from 01.01.2016, in terms of page 49 of the paper-book. The contention of the petitioner is that as a result of the pay fixation, as the last pay drawn by the petitioner, at the time of his superannuation, was revised, therefore, he is entitled for the said revised pay for the period of his re- employment and denial thereof is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the re-employment of the petitioner was not on any fixed pay scale or pay, but was on the last pay drawn, i.e. the pay in the pay band + grade pay, being drawn at the time of retirement. As the last pay drawn by the petitioner stood revised, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the pay on his re-employment in terms of the revised pay band + grade pay and the act of the respondents of not paying to him the difference between the pay actually paid to him and the pay to which he is entitled to, is bad in law. Accordingly, he submitted that the petition be disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner, the differential amount of the pre-revision basic pay and revised basic pay with interest.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that as the re-employment of the petitioner, was in terms of the contents of Annexure P-1 and the petitioner had agreed to be re-employed on the basis of the last pay drawn by him at the time of his superannuation, therefore, he cannot claim revision thereof because he accepted to serve on re-employment on the last pay drawn, as was before the revision of pay scale. He further submitted that otherwise also the Revised Pay Rules are not applicable to the persons who are not in the whole time employment of the government and, therefore, also the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said rules. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the writ petition, the same be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the contention of the petitioner.
The petitioner in terms of Annexure P-1, was re-employed on the last pay drawn, which was explained in terms of Annexure P-1 to be the pay in the pay band + grade pay being drawn at the time of retirement. It was the State Government which took a decision in the year 2021 to revise the pay scales of the employees, with effect from 01.01.2016. This means that the pay of the petitioner, which was drawn by him, with effect from 01.01.2016 up to the date of his superannuation, also stood revised. This is also not in dispute as learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pay of the petitioner actually stands revised with effect from 01.01.2016 up to the date of his superannuation, though arrears are being paid in installments.
In the light of said development, as pursuant to the issuance of subsequent notification in the year 2022, which stands referred by me hereinabove, because the last pay drawn by the petitioner stood revised, obviously the salary of the petitioner for the period of re-employment, is liable to be indemnified on the basis of the said revised last pay drawn. There is no condition in order dated 10.06.2019 that the salary to be paid to the petitioner on re-employment, on the basis of last pay drawn, was to be on fixed emoluments. Nothing prevented the respondents from specifying in the order of re-employment that the petitioner shall be entitled to a particular sum of amount, which is fixed. However, respondents did not do so. They rather offered re-employment on the last pay drawn, which fortuitously stood revised on account of the acts of the respondents themselves.
Therefore, in the light of above discussion, as the petitioner cannot be denied the wages for the period of re-employment on the basis of the last pay drawn, as it stood revised with effect from 01.01.2016, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the differential amount of the pre-revision basic pay and revised basic pay from 10.06.2019 up to 10.06.2022 i.e. the period for which he was re-employed. Needful be done within 3 months from today, failing which, the amount shall also entail interest at the rate of 6 % from the date of the judgment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.