RSA-637-1998 IN THE HIGH 207 STATE OF HAR H.N.SHARMA CORAM : HON Present: Mr. for t Resp ex-
 AMARINDER S 1. The defendants assai learned First App dismissed and th Trial Court, decr respondent, was u 2. For manner in which 3. In b permanent injunc the Irrigation D service on 03.12 of the requisite l 1998 (O&M) -1- IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H HARYANA AND OTHERS Versus MA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, DAG, Hary for the appellants. Respondent has been proceeded again -parte, vide order dated 11.02.200  DER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present Regular Second Appeal assailing the judgment and decree rst Appellate Court, whereby the appe and the judgment and decree dated 1 t, decreeing the suit for permanent inj , was upheld. For the sake of convenience, the p which they were before the learned Tr In brief, the facts of the case are th injunction asserting that he was appoi ion Department on 22.12.1978 and 03.12.1980. He continued to serve u uisite length of service, was granted t ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR RSA No.637 of 1998 (O&M) Reserved on:05.02.2026 Pronounced on:17.02.2026 Uploaded on:17.02.2026 ... Appellants ... Respondent MARINDER SINGH GREWAL , Haryana, d against 02.2002. Appeal has been filed by the appellant ecree dated 22.12.1997 passed by t e appeal preferred by the defendant w dated 12.02.1997 passed by the learn ent injunction in favour of the plainti , the parties are being described in t ned Trial Court. are that the plaintiff instituted a suit f appointed as a Sub Divisional Officer nd was subsequently regularised erve uninterruptedly and, on completi anted the benefit of selection grade a GARH &M) 2026 dent pellants– d by the dant was learned plaintiff- d in the a suit for fficer in arised in mpletion rade and RSA-637-1998 was drawing a ba at Charkhi Da Division No. III, same scale. How Construction Div March 1995, wh instead of ₹422 defendant No.3 w from the Governm notice or affordin the selection grad seeking a decree his pay and from present suit. 4. Upo contesting the su the benefit of se dated 16.05.1990 selection grade w of regular and sa to 20% of the ca Charkhi Dadri, w got his pay fix Mohindergarh D vested only with 1998 (O&M) -2- ng a basic pay of ₹4225/- along with a Dadri. The plaintiff was transferre o. III, Hisar on 31.10.1994, where he . However, defendant No.3, namely t on Division No. 9, Hisar, while relea 5, which was paid in April 1995, r ₹4225/- along with allowances. Th No.3 was not competent to reduce his overnment or the Engineer-in-Chief an ffording an opportunity of hearing. Ag n grade and reduction of his pay, the ecree for permanent injunction restrai d from interfering with the benefits a Upon notice, the defendants appeare the suit. It was specifically pleaded th of selection grade in view of the Go 5.1990 bearing No.6/38/3PR(FD)87, rade was admissible only to regular en and satisfactory service and that the g the cadre posts. It was further averred adri, was aware of the aforesaid instru ay fixed in a higher scale by mis arh Division, Charkhi Dadri. In fact with the Engineer-in-Chief. It was p with admissible allowances while post nsferred to Sidhmukh Mechanical S ere he continued to receive salary in t mely the Executive Engineer, Sidhmu e releasing the salary for the month 995, reduced his basic pay to ₹340 es. The case of the plaintiff was th ce his salary in the absence of any ord hief and without issuing any show cau ing. Aggrieved against the withdrawal y, the plaintiff instituted the present s restraining the defendants from reduci efits already granted to him. Hence, t ppeared and filed their written stateme ded that the plaintiff was not entitled the Government of Haryana instructio D)87, wherein it was stipulated that t ular engineers on completion of 12 yea t the grant of such benefit was restrict verred that the plaintiff, while posted instructions but concealed the same a y misleading the Executive Engine fact, the authority to fix the pay w t was pleaded that the fixation of pay le posted ical Sub ry in the idhmukh onth of ₹3400/- was that ny order ow cause rawal of sent suit reducing ence, the tatement ntitled to tructions that the 12 years restricted posted at ame and ngineer, pay was f pay in RSA-637-1998 favour of the pla record, the inadv accordance with contested on vari that the suit was no locus standi 5. On framed as many a 6. In o tendered docume dated 16.05.1990 (copies of orders 20.07.1994) and defendants exam documents Ex.D scales), Ex.D-2 ( Secretary to Go dated 18.01.1993 7. Upo learned Trial Co plaintiff was ₹4 Haryana letter da of ₹4100-5300 w only 20% of the c service; however 1998 (O&M) -3- he plaintiff was thus without jurisdict inadvertent error came to light, wh with the applicable rules and instru n various preliminary objections, viz. it was false, frivolous, not maintainabl to file the same. On the basis of the pleadings of th many as ten issues including relief. In order to prove his case, the plaint ocumentary evidence comprising Ex.P 5.1990), Ex.P-2 (copy of letter dated orders of the High Court dated 30.05.1 ) and Ex.P-6 (copy of order dated 17 examined Sh. S.P. Gulati, Executive Ex.D-1 (copy of letter dated 21.05 2 (letter dated 13.10.1994 issued b to Government of Haryana to the E 1.1993) and Ex.D-4 (copy of order dat Upon appreciation of documentar ial Court held that as per letter Ex.P ₹4100-5300. The Court further n tter dated 16.05.1990 (Ex.P-1), the gr 300 was made subject to the condi of the cadre posts after completion of 1 wever, the said instructions were chal risdiction and, on scrutiny of his servi whereafter the pay was corrected instructions. The suit was according s, viz., suppression of material facts a tainable in law, and that the plaintiff h s of the parties, the learned Trial Co plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 a g Ex.P-1 (copy of revision of pay sca dated 21.05.1990), Ex.P-3 and Ex.P 0.05.1990), Ex.P-5 (copy of letter dat ted 17.02.1984). On the other hand, t cutive Engineer, as DW-1 and produc 21.05.1990 regarding revision of p sued by the Financial Commissioner a the Engineer-in-Chief), Ex.D-3 (lett er dated 09.08.1994). entary as well as oral evidence, t Ex.P-1, the pay scale applicable to t rther noticed that vide Government the grant of selection grade in the sca ondition that it would be admissible on of 12 years of regular and satisfacto re challenged by a number of officers s service rected in ordingly facts and intiff had ial Court 1 and ay scale d Ex.P-4 ter dated and, the roduced of pay oner and 3 (letter , the le to the ment of the scale ssible to isfactory ficers of RSA-637-1998 the department i Division Bench petition was state said instructions The learned tria Singla v. State o employee is sub period of ad-hoc basis, the learne requisite length o ₹4100-5300 w.e. illegal. Conseque liberty to the d if permissible, in P-1. 8. Agg preferred an appe and decree dated affirmed the find quantum of costs Regular Second A 9. Lear judgments of bot on record. It was ad hoc basis on 2 1998 (O&M) -4- ment in CWP No. 7947 of 1990 be ench had stayed the operation of th s stated to be pending. The learned T ctions could not be enforced against al Court also placed reliance upo ate of Haryana, 1995 (4) SLR 586 is subsequently regularised and has hoc service cannot be ignored and learned Trial Court concluded that ength of service and was entitled to t 0 w.e.f. 31.12.1990 and that the sub nsequently, the suit was decreed with the defendants to refix the pay a ble, in the event of the relevant notific Aggrieved against the said judgm n appeal before the learned First App dated 22.12.1997, upon reappraisal e findings of the learned Trial Court f costs by reducing the same from ₹30 cond Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant of both the learned Courts below were It was argued that the plaintiff-respon is on 22.12.1978 and was regularised 90 before this Hon’ble Court and t of the said notification, and the w rned Trial Court, therefore, held that t gainst the plaintiff at the relevant tim e upon the judgment in Rakesh Kum 586, wherein it was held that where d has rendered continuous service, t ed and is liable to be counted. On th d that the plaintiff had completed t d to the selection grade in the scale e subsequent reduction of his pay w d with costs of ₹3000/-, while granti pay and recover any excess amou notification becoming operative i.e. E judgment and decree, the defendan t Appellate Court, which vide judgme raisal of the entire material on recor Court on merits and modified only t ₹3000/- to ₹500/-.Hence, the prese pellants–defendants contended that t w were contrary to law and the eviden respondent was initially appointed on larised on 03.12.1980. It was submitt and the the writ that the ant time. Kumar here an vice, the On this eted the scale of pay was granting amount, e i.e. Ex. fendants udgment record, only the e present that the evidence ed on an ubmitted RSA-637-1998 that, as per the ₹4100–5300 was of regular servic years of regular s had been wrongl ₹3400/- upon a c 10. It w the decision of th SLR 586, wherei the appellants su under considerat said judgment ha state. It was thu wholly misplaced Supreme Court Association and connected appea service cannot b Consequently, th below no longer affidavit of appel specifically stated of the cadre posts 5300/-, and since 20% cadre posts, 1998 (O&M) -5- r the applicable instructions, the sel 0 was admissible only to those emplo service. However, since the plaintiff gular service, the basic selection grade wrongly granted to him, and his pay on a correct interpretation of notificati t was further contended that the res n of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Sin wherein ad hoc service had been count ants submitted that the legality of th sideration before the Hon’ble Suprem ent had been stayed in the Special Le as thus argued that the reliance plac splaced, as the issue has since been f Court in State of Haryana vs. Ha and connected matters (Civil A ppeals, decided on 19.09.2000), wh nnot be counted in the manner clai tly, the very foundation of the finding onger survived. Learned counsel for f appellant No. 3, Executive Engineer, y stated that only those officials whose e posts were eligible for the selection g d since the name of the respondent-pl osts, he was not entitled to the said s he selection grade in the pay scale employees who had completed 12 yea aintiff-respondent had not completed grade in the pay scale of ₹4100–5300 is pay was thereafter rightly reduced tification, Ex. P-2 dated 21.05.1990. the respondent had based his claim up r Singla v. State of Haryana, 1995 ( counted for certain purposes. Howev of the said Full Bench judgment w upreme Court, and the operation of t Leave Petition filed against it by t ce placed upon the said judgment w been finally adjudicated by the Hon’b . Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T il Appeal No. 13423 of 1996 a wherein it was clarified that ad h er claimed by the respondent-plainti findings recorded by the learned Cou el for the appellants also referred to t gineer, dated 14.11.2025, wherein it w whose names were included within 20 ction grade in the pay scale of Rs. 410 plaintiff did not fall within the sa said selection grade. scale of 12 years leted 12 5300/- duced to im upon 995 (4) owever, ent was n of the it by the ent was Hon’ble .H.T.S. 6 and t ad hoc plaintiff. d Courts ed to the in it was thin 20% s. 4100- the said RSA-637-1998 11. It is respondent, ther proceeded agains year 1998 and, the material avai appellants. 12. Befo view of the jud through LRs v. Singh, (2019) 17 SCC Online SC second appeals b the Punjab Court 13. I ha perused the reco No.3–Executive question that ari grant of selectio service and whet from any illegalit 14. A pe hoc basis on 22.1 on 31.01.1998. instructions date scales and selecti 1998 (O&M) -6- It is pertinent to note that desp there is no representation on his against ex parte vide order dated 11.02 therefore, this court proceeds to d al available on record and the submi Before adverting to the merits of th e judgments of the Hon’ble Suprem s v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 15 19) 17 SCC 71; and Gurbachan Si SC 875, substantial questions of law eals before this Court, whose jurisdic Courts Act, 1918. I have heard learned counsel for t e record of the case, including the aff utive Engineer and the documents at arises for consideration is whethe election grade of Rs. 4100-5300 /- d whether the judgments and decrees p llegality or perversity?. A perusal of the record shows that 22.12.1978 and was regularised on . The record further shows that th s dated 02.06.1989 (Letter No.6/38/ selection grade, whereby senior scale w despite service of notice upon n his behalf and he was according 11.02.2002.The present appeal is of t to dispose of the same on the basis submissions advanced on behalf of t ts of the case, it may be noticed tha upreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dea C 157; Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi P n Singh v. Gurcharan Singh (202 of law are not required to be framed urisdiction is governed by Section 41 l for the appellants and have careful the affidavit filed on behalf of appella ments placed on record. The prima hether the plaintiff was entitled to t -by counting the period of ad h crees passed by the Courts below suff s that the plaintiff was appointed on ed on 03.12.1980, and ultimately retir that the Government of Haryana issu 6/38/3PR(FD)-87) introducing revis scale was admissible on completion of the ordingly is of the basis of lf of the d that in (Dead) vi Pal (2023) ramed in on 41 of carefully appellant primary d to the d hoc w suffer ed on ad ly retired a issued revised tion of 5 RSA-637-1998 years and select completion of 12 from 01.05.1989 instructions dated selection grade i and would be a satisfactory servi this Court in sev the benefit of se posts. Howeve Hon’ble Supreme titled as State o while examining not expressly no could not have d accordingly clari The relevant port “Sele as 20 ment have Cour was the H 5300 the c Ther 1998 (O&M) -7- selection grade in the scale of Rs 12 years of regular service on the p .1989. Thereafter, upon reconsiderati ted 16.05.1990, modifying the ear rade in the revised scale would be re be admissible only after complet y service. The said policy became the in several writ petitions, wherein relie of selection grade was not restricte owever, the aforesaid view was cha upreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 1463 te of Haryana versus Ishwar Sing ining the issue, held that merely beca sly noticed in the earlier instructions ave directed grant of selection grade t y clarified the correct legal position go nt portion of the judgment reads as und Selection Grade is restricted to cer as 20% in the present case. So, mere mentioned in the earlier order dated have awarded Selection Grade to eve Court should have seen that the mist was rectified. We therefore, allow th the High Court and direct that the S 5300/- will be restricted to 20% of th the clarification dated 16.05.1990. T There shall be no order as to costs” Rs.4100–5300/- was admissible n the posts of AE/AEE/SDE, with effe ideration, the Government issued furth the earlier policy and clarifying that t restricted to20% of the cadre pos mpletion of 12 years of regular a e the subject matter of challenge befo in relief was granted by interpreting estricted to certain percentage of cad as challenged by the State before t . 1463 of 2000, decided on 20.11.200 Singh. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou y because the percentage restriction w ctions dated 02.06.1989, the High Cou grade to every member of the cadre, a tion governing the grant of such benef as under:- o certain percentage of the posts su merely because the percentage was n ated 2.6.89, the High Court could n o every member in the cadre. The Hi mistake in the order dated 02.06.19 w the appeal and set aside the order the Selection Grade scale of Rs.410 of the posts in the cadre as provided 0. The appeal is allowed according sts” sible on ith effect d further that the re posts, ular and e before that of cadre fore the 11.2000, e Court, tion was gh Court dre, and benefit. ts such as not uld not e High 6.1989 rder of .4100- ided in dingly. RSA-637-1998 15. The No. 8172 of 1990 on 17.08.2001, w Hon’ble Suprem notification date selection grade declared by the H 16. The the 20% cadre accordingly such admissible dates did not figure i working on the p years of regular s 17. In not automatic an Government inst completion of 12 effective from 01 18. The of fresh notificati the prescribed co of the plaintiff– eligibility condit 1998 (O&M) -8- The aforesaid view was subsequent 1990 titled as H.R. Dhanjal and oth , wherein directions were issued in upreme Court. Pursuant thereto, t n dated 05.11.2001 (Notification No grade to eligible doctors and engine y the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the d The department thereafter prepared cadre strength and were eligible fo such officers were granted the sc dates vide letter dated 11.10.2002. Th gure in the said list, as only those n the posts of AE/AEE/SDE as on gular satisfactory service, and fell with view of the aforesaid, it is eviden atic and was subject to fulfilment of nt instructions, including the restrictio of 12 years of regular satisfactory se 01.05.1989 or onwards. The record shows that pursuant to th tification, the department prepared a li bed conditions and fell within the perm –respondent did not figure in the conditions in terms of cadre positio quently followed by this Court in CW d others vs. State of Haryana, decid ued in terms of the law laid down by t reto, the Government issued a fre on No. 10/29/90-3PR(FD) for grant engineers in accordance with the la d the directions issued by this Court. epared a list of officers who fell with ble for grant of selection grade, a the scale of Rs.4100–5300/- from t . The name of the plaintiff–responde those officers were eligible who we on 01.05.1989 and had completed ll within the 20% cadre limit. evident that grant of selection grade w of the conditions prescribed in t striction to 20% of the cadre posts tory service in terms of the instructio nt to the clarification of law and issuan ed a list of eligible officers who fulfill he permissible cadre strength. The nam in the said list, as he did not fulfil position and policy requirements. CWP ecided n by the a fresh grant of the law ll within ade, and rom the spondent ho were leted 12 rade was d in the and tructions issuance fulfilled he name fulfil the The RSA-637-1998 record shows tha selection grade u from 01.05.1989 On the said date regular service, a the time, clarific plaintiff had com was still less tha did not fulfil th services as AE/A 19. It fu to the plaintiff– the date of regul entitlement of sel service, yet the service from the respondent had relevant dates. respondent prima Singla’s case (su the Hon’ble Sup A.H.T.S. Associ and connected a High Court was Consequently, th 1998 (O&M) -9- ws that the respondent was regularis rade under the Government instructio .1989, subject to completion of 12 ye d date, the plaintiff had rendered onl , and was thus short of the presc larificatory instructions dated 16.05.1 d completed only about 9 years and 5 ss than the required period of 12 yea the basic eligibility condition of AE/AEE/SDE for grant of selection g It further appears that the learned C –respondent, did not properly exam f regularisation and the actual length selection grade was required to be t the learned Courts below failed to m the date of regularisation and did n had completed the prescribed 12 . Furthermore, the learned Cou t primarily by relying upon the judgm e (supra). However, the said judgme le Supreme Court in State of Harya sociation and connected matters ( ted appeals, decided on 19.09.2000 rt was set aside and the appeals fi tly, the very basis on which relie ularised on 03.12.1980. The benefit tructions became admissible with effe 12 years of regular satisfactory servic ed only about 8 years and 5 months prescribed qualifying service. Even 6.05.1990 were issued, the responden and 5 months of regular service, whi 12 years. Thus, the respondent-plaint of 12 years of regular satisfacto tion grade of Rs.4100–5300/-. rned Courts below, while granting reli y examine the material aspect relating ength of qualifying regular service. T to be determined on the basis of regul iled to calculate the period of regu d did not examine whether the plainti 12 years of regular service on t d Courts below granted relief to t judgment rendered in Rakesh Kum udgment was subsequently examined aryana vs. Haryana Veterinary a ers (Civil Appeal No. 13423 of 19 2000), wherein the view taken by t eals filed by the State were allowe relief was granted to the plaintif enefit of ith effect service. onths of Even by pondent- e, which plaintiff isfactory ng relief lating to . The regular f regular plaintiff- on the f to the Kumar ned by ry and f 1996 n by the allowed. laintiff– RSA-637-1998 respondent no lo below cannot be 20. Con hereinabove, the both the learned costs. Decree she 21. Pend accordingly. February 17, 20 Pankaj* 1998 (O&M) -10- t no longer survives, and the finding ot be sustained. Consequently, in view of the di e, the present appeal is allowed. The d Courts below are hereby set asi ree sheet be prepared accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application (AMARIN , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable indings recorded by the learned Cou the discussion and findings record . The judgments and decrees passed set aside. There shall be no order as cation, if any, also stands disposed ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No Courts recorded assed by der as to posed of