OFFICE OF DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Order No. 12/105-2016 ET-I(1) Dated, Parichkula, the 913 /a6) ,
Whereas Rajesh Kumar, JBT, GPS Budeen, Block Mahendergarh, District
Mahendergarh have filed CWP NO.17924 of 2016 titled as Rajesh Kumar & others Vs.
State of Haryana & others in the Hon'ble High Court and the same decided by Hon'ble
Court on 31.08.2016 by passing the following orders inter alia:-
"Mr. Malik, learned arguing senior counsel appearing for the cause of the
petitioners submits that this matter is covered by the decisions of this Court, the text of
which are placed at Annex P-5 to P-7 on the question of stepping up of the petitioners'
pay at par with their juniors, of valuable rights which have been explained in CWP
No.11254 of 2010 (Neelam Rani v. The State of Haryana & ors.) decided on May 15,
2013 (pg. 119 of the paper-book). The petitioners are in service. Mr. Malik submits that the petitioners
have not made any representation to the respondent-department. In the circumstances, this Court may consider issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent to
consider their dispute by treating this petition as a representation and passing a
speaking order on the claims. The request is worthy of acceptance as rt is found
genuine in its demand for justice. Therefore, a direction is issued to the 2nd 'respondent
to decide upon the grievance of the petitioners by treating this petition as a representation after hearing the petitioners in a representative capacity of no more than
three of them from amongst the array of parties, as of whom are best aNuainted with
the facts of the case and are duly authorized by the rest to represe nt them at the
hearing before the officer who has the authority to decide the lis. It is expected that the 2nd respondent will faithfully implement the judgments of this Court relied upon by the
petitioners which ex facie demonstrate a strong prima facie case in 'their favour since
they are similarly situated to those who have already been granted the relief and if they
are similarly placed in all circumstances, the 2nd respondent may have hardly any
option except to implement and carry out faithfully the ratio of the judgments in
conformity with equal opportunity mandates in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Let
the decision be taken within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. In case any other petitioner approaches this Court for the same relief, the
competent authority may be saddled with exemplary costs as against employees who
are compelled to approach Court to claim their legitimate dues, in protection of their
constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India which the
prayer represents so as not to burden this court with further needless litigation on an
issue which is recognized and declared by judicial precedent in the field covered. With
the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of." In compliance of order dated 31.08.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court, I have gone
through the CWP as representation. In this annexure, the petitioners demanded to refix
their pay at the junior counterparts as per rule 8 of the revise pay rule with all consequential benefits as given to the petitioner of CWP NO. 11254 of 2010 Neelam
Rani Vs. State of Haryana decided on 15.05.2013.
Further it is also pertinent to mention here that as per FD advice U.O. No.
6/42/2011-4PR (FD), dated 09.10.2015, that administrative department had already
implemented the High Court order 15.05.2013 subject to the outcome of appeal to be
filed by the department against the judgment to avoid the contempt proceedings in
COCP 657 of 2014 Neelam Rani Vs. State of Haryana. However, the benefit has been
given in similar CWP NO. 11254 of 2010.
It further submitted that LPA is being filled in the similar cases which has been
allowed in term of CWP NO. 11254 of 2010 Neelam Rani Vs. State of Haryana & others
because SLP in case of Neelam Rani was dismissed by apex court due to delay and not
on merits. Therefore in the view of the office, the claim of the petitioner deserves to
maintain to the extent to fix the pay of the petitioner at par with their junior counterparts
subject to the outcome of LPA/SLP filled in other similar CWP 4739 of 2011 Mukesh
Bhatnagar Vs. State of Haryana with a condition that if the decision of the LPA/SLP
comes against the petitioners of similar CWPs then the petitioner of present CWP No.
17924 of 2016 will have to refund the excess amount and benefit given to them will be
deemed to withdraw.
I pass order accordingly.
(S. .Phu ia)
Director Elementary Educliti
Haryana, Panchkula
Order No. 12/105-2016 ET-I(1) Dated, Parichkula, the 913 /a6) ,
Whereas Rajesh Kumar, JBT, GPS Budeen, Block Mahendergarh, District
Mahendergarh have filed CWP NO.17924 of 2016 titled as Rajesh Kumar & others Vs.
State of Haryana & others in the Hon'ble High Court and the same decided by Hon'ble
Court on 31.08.2016 by passing the following orders inter alia:-
"Mr. Malik, learned arguing senior counsel appearing for the cause of the
petitioners submits that this matter is covered by the decisions of this Court, the text of
which are placed at Annex P-5 to P-7 on the question of stepping up of the petitioners'
pay at par with their juniors, of valuable rights which have been explained in CWP
No.11254 of 2010 (Neelam Rani v. The State of Haryana & ors.) decided on May 15,
2013 (pg. 119 of the paper-book). The petitioners are in service. Mr. Malik submits that the petitioners
have not made any representation to the respondent-department. In the circumstances, this Court may consider issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent to
consider their dispute by treating this petition as a representation and passing a
speaking order on the claims. The request is worthy of acceptance as rt is found
genuine in its demand for justice. Therefore, a direction is issued to the 2nd 'respondent
to decide upon the grievance of the petitioners by treating this petition as a representation after hearing the petitioners in a representative capacity of no more than
three of them from amongst the array of parties, as of whom are best aNuainted with
the facts of the case and are duly authorized by the rest to represe nt them at the
hearing before the officer who has the authority to decide the lis. It is expected that the 2nd respondent will faithfully implement the judgments of this Court relied upon by the
petitioners which ex facie demonstrate a strong prima facie case in 'their favour since
they are similarly situated to those who have already been granted the relief and if they
are similarly placed in all circumstances, the 2nd respondent may have hardly any
option except to implement and carry out faithfully the ratio of the judgments in
conformity with equal opportunity mandates in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Let
the decision be taken within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. In case any other petitioner approaches this Court for the same relief, the
competent authority may be saddled with exemplary costs as against employees who
are compelled to approach Court to claim their legitimate dues, in protection of their
constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India which the
prayer represents so as not to burden this court with further needless litigation on an
issue which is recognized and declared by judicial precedent in the field covered. With
the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of." In compliance of order dated 31.08.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court, I have gone
through the CWP as representation. In this annexure, the petitioners demanded to refix
their pay at the junior counterparts as per rule 8 of the revise pay rule with all consequential benefits as given to the petitioner of CWP NO. 11254 of 2010 Neelam
Rani Vs. State of Haryana decided on 15.05.2013.
Further it is also pertinent to mention here that as per FD advice U.O. No.
6/42/2011-4PR (FD), dated 09.10.2015, that administrative department had already
implemented the High Court order 15.05.2013 subject to the outcome of appeal to be
filed by the department against the judgment to avoid the contempt proceedings in
COCP 657 of 2014 Neelam Rani Vs. State of Haryana. However, the benefit has been
given in similar CWP NO. 11254 of 2010.
It further submitted that LPA is being filled in the similar cases which has been
allowed in term of CWP NO. 11254 of 2010 Neelam Rani Vs. State of Haryana & others
because SLP in case of Neelam Rani was dismissed by apex court due to delay and not
on merits. Therefore in the view of the office, the claim of the petitioner deserves to
maintain to the extent to fix the pay of the petitioner at par with their junior counterparts
subject to the outcome of LPA/SLP filled in other similar CWP 4739 of 2011 Mukesh
Bhatnagar Vs. State of Haryana with a condition that if the decision of the LPA/SLP
comes against the petitioners of similar CWPs then the petitioner of present CWP No.
17924 of 2016 will have to refund the excess amount and benefit given to them will be
deemed to withdraw.
I pass order accordingly.
(S. .Phu ia)
Director Elementary Educliti
Haryana, Panchkula
No comments:
Post a Comment