AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Surjit Singh, Judge
Petitioner was engaged as a Conductor, on daily-wage basis, in the year 1972. He was appointed, on regular basis, in the year 1978. Vide order dated 28th September, 1991, he was released senior scale of `1200-2100, with effect from 1st January, 1986. A show cause notice Anenxure A-1, was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause why the senior scale granted to him be not withdrawn and overpaid salary, to the tune of `74,408/-, recovered from him. He submitted reply, Annexure A-2, on 3rd February, 2001. Thereafter, order Anneuxre A-3, withdrawing the senior scale and ordering recovery of overpayment, was passed.
Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order, by filing an Original Application, being OA No.649 of 2001, before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. That application was allowed, to the extent that order of recovery of overpayment was quashed. Copy of the order of the Tribunal is Annexure A-4. Petitioner was thereafter granted senior scale, w.e.f. 1st July, 2007, vide Annexure A-5. He filed another Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking quashing of order, cancelling the grant of senior scale, w.e.f. 1st January, 1986, which was granted vide order dated 28th September, 1991. On the abolition of the said Tribunal, matter has come to this Court and registered as the present writ petition.
In the reply, it is stated that since the petitioner had been visited with various penalties, before the sanction of senior scale, vide aforesaid order dated 28th September, 1991, grant of senior scale was illegal, on the face of it, and was, therefore, withdrawn.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Show cause notice Annexure A-1, which was issued to the petitioner, before passing the order of cancellation of grant of senior scale, makes a mention of five punishments, regarding stoppage of increments. One increment was stopped vide order dated 20th March, 1984, two increments by another order of the same day, one increment vide order dated 28th August, 1985, one increment vide order dated 30th March, 1988 and one increment vide order dated 9th March, 1989. It was because of these orders of punishments, regarding stoppage of increments, that the senior scale granted to the petitioner, w.e.f. 1st January, 1986, was withdrawn.
Now, when order dated 28th August, 1985, regarding stoppage of one increment, was in operation on 1st January, 1986, the date from which senior scale had been granted, the order of grant of such scale was bad, on the face of it, and, hence, illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that senior scale was withdrawn, after some instructions dated 13th July, 1992, were issued by the Finance Department, as referred to in Annexure A-1, to the effect that senior scale was to be granted, on appraisal of the service record of the concerned employee, depending upon final assessment of his work and conduct. No doubt, in Annexure A-1, it is referred to that there were some instructions of Finance Department, issued vide letter dated 13th July, 1992, but even in the absence of such instructions, an employee, undergoing punishment, on the date from which senior scale was released, could not have been granted the higher scale. Reason being that when the petitioner was not entitled to get even ordinary increment in his lower scale, how could he have been granted higher pay-scale from that date. This reasoning is based on common sense as also one of the general principles of service jurisprudence that a person, when undergoing punishment, is not entitled to any promotional or financial benefits.
Otherwise also, present petition is hit by the principle of resjudicata. Petitioner challenged the order of withdrawal of senior scale granted w.e.f. 1st January, 1986, before the Tribunal, in the earlier Original Application No.649 of 2001. That application was partly allowed and recovery part of the impugned order was quashed. Rest of the order remained intact. In other words, his plea for quashing the order, withdrawing the senior scale, had been dismissed, by implication. So, fresh petition, re-agitating the same question, is barred by doctrine of resjudicata.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.