CWP-27226-202 IN T 268 Harjeet Singh and State of Punjab an CORAM: HON ***** Present : Mr. Mr. A ***** AMAN CHAUDH 1. Praye to grant the statuto 2. Learn Junior Technician 29.12.2015 where being paid consol 17.07.2020. The Sharma and othe connected cases, o dismissed on 22.0 covers the case o despite best effort and draw out any contrary law and t 23 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date and others Versus jab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN C ***** Mr. Rashpinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab. ***** AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) yer made in the present petition statutory pay scale. Learned counsel submits that the p nician in February, 2021, pursuant t wherein also the scale as per the rules consolidated pay of Rs.19,900/- in te The issue has already been decided d others vs. State of Punjab and an ases, on 13.09.2024, against which ev n 22.05.2024 so also SLP No.1158 of case of the petitioners on all fours, efforts has been unable to controver t any distinctive aspects in the aforem and the same read thus:- “8. It is a settled principle o well as the pay scale is to be rules governing the service 1 UNJAB & HARYANA ARH CWP-27226-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondents AN CHAUDHARY te for the petitioners. ition is for directing the respondents the petitioners were appointed as uant to the Advertisement No.6 of ules was mentioned while they are in terms of the Instructions dated decided by this Court in Saurabh nd another, CWP-15896-2023 and ich even LPA No.1277 of 2024 was 158 of 2025, on 20.01.2025, which fours, which learned State counsel trovert regards the factual position forementioned judgment or cite any iple of law that the appointment as to be given in accordance with the ervice. Learned counsel for the ents d as 6 of are ated abh and was nsel ition any t as the the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.02.06 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27226-202 23 (O&M) respondents concedes the fact are applicable upon the petitio Professor, the pay scale envis 67,000/ + 8600/- Grade Pay. petitioners should have been g of Assistant Professor as envisa 9. Further, with regard to the for the respondents that when Instructions of the State dated operation, hence, the petition benefit of pay only as per the I it may be noticed that merely issued Instructions dated 17. overwrite the 2016 Rules go settled principle of law that between the Instructions an service, the 2016 Rules will dated 17.07.2020, hence, once have supremacy over the Instr petitioners are held entitled for 67,000/- + ₹8600/- Grade Pay Assistant Professor as envisa cannot be denied the said ben merely that contradictory In have been issued by the State Rules are amended to be in con dated 17.07.2020, the Instructi be given effect to till the said I with the 2016 Rules governing 10. At this stage, learned c submits that the Instructions supplement the Rules. The Instructions to supplement t Instructions will only operate i by the 2016 Rules governing th which 2016 Rules are silent. 11. In the present petitions, question has been described in it cannot be said that by the I respondents were supplemen Instructions dated 17.07.2020 a qua the pay scale of the po working and hence, said In cannot be made operational till 12. Even otherwise, in case th accepted that after 17.07.20 17.07.2020 will operate then violated their own Instruction 2 e fact that as per 2016 Rules, which petitioners qua the post of Assistant envisaged therein is Rs.37,400 – Pay. That being the position, the been given the pay scale of the post envisaged under the 2016 Rules. to the argument of learned counsel when the posts were advertised, the dated 17.07.2020 were already in petitioners have been granted the r the Instructions dated 17.07.2020, erely that the respondent-State had d 17.07.2020, the same will not les governing the service. It is a that in case, there is a conflict ns and the Rules governing the will prevail over the Instructions , once under the 2016 Rules which e Instructions dated 17.07.2020, the led for the pay scale of ₹ ₹ 37,400 – e Pay while working on the post of envisaged under 2016 Rules, they id benefit of pay under 2016 Rules ry Instructions dated 17.07.2020 e State. Until and unless the 2016 in conformity with the Instructions structions dated 17.07.2020 cannot said Instructions remain in conflict erning the service. rned counsel for the respondents ctions have only been issued to The State has a power to issue ent the Rules. The supplement erate in a field which is not covered ning the service or on the aspect qua ions, the pay scale of the post in ibed in the 2016 Rules itself, hence, the Instructions dated 17.07.2020, lementing the Rules. Rather the .2020 are contrary to the 2016 Rules the post on which petitioners are aid Instructions dated 17.07.2020 nal till 2016 Rules are amended. case the plea of the respondents is 7.07.2020, the Instructions dated e then also the respondents have ructions dated 17.07.2020 qua the hich tant the post nsel , the y in the 020, had not is a flict the ions hich , the st of they ules 020 016 ions nnot flict ents to ssue ent ered qua t in nce, 020, the ules are 020 ts is ated ave the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.02.06 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27226-202 23 (O&M) promotions which have been m Professor. It is a conceded fact to the post of Assistant Profe the petitioners in 2021, have envisaged under 2016 Rules, h pick and choose as to whe applicable or the Instruction applicable. 13. The scenario in the pr appointees to the post of Ass appointment of the petitioners the post as envisaged under promotees who have been pr of the petitioners, the Instructio been made applicable on them according to the pay scale men clear case of pick and choose employees and Instructions cannot be permitted. 14. Hence, once the 2016 Rule have a statutory force, are o particular pay scale for the pos and have not been amended so applicable by ignoring the In which are contrary to 2016 Ru directed to grant the petitioner under 2016 Rules i.e. Rs.37,40 Pay. 15. As in CWP No. 20454- have been appointed as Associ the Advertisement dated 22. covered by the decision rende scale of the Associate Profess 2016 Rules to mean Rs.37,40 Pay, which is not being extende 16. Keeping in view the abo allowed. The respondents are d the pay scale which they are e from the date of their direct will also be entitled for arre performed the duties for the p of their direct appointment. Le be extended to the petitioners w from the date of receipt of copy 17. At this stage, learned coun that though the petitioners have in view the fact that they are o as entitled to them under 2016 3 been made to the post of Assistant ed fact that the employees promoted Professor after the appointment of have been given the pay scale as ules, hence, the respondents cannot o when the 2016 Rules will be uctions dated 17.07.2020 will be the present cases is that all the of Assistant Professor prior to the ioners are enjoying the pay scale of under 2016 Rules and even the en promoted after the appointment tructions dated 17.07.2020 have not them and their pay has been fixed le mentioned in 2016 Rules. This is hoose to apply 2016 Rules to some ns to other employees, which 6 Rules governing the service which are operational and prescribes a he post being held by the petitioners so far, the same has to be made the Instructions dated 17.07.2020, 16 Rules, hence the respondents are titioners the pay scale as envisaged 37,400 – 67,000/- + 8600/- Grade -2024, some of the petitioners ssociate Professors in pursuance to d 22.05.2022, they will also be rendered here-inbefore, as the pay rofessor has also been described in 37,400 – 67,000/- + 8900/- Grade xtended to them. e above, the present petitions are s are directed to give the petitioners y are entitled under the 2016 Rules direct appointment. The petitioners or arrears of salary as they have r the post in question from the date nt. Let the arrears be calculated and oners within a period of eight weeks f copy of this order d counsel for the petitioners submit ave claimed interest but keeping are only interested in the pay scale r 2016 Rules, they are not pressing tant oted t of e as nnot be l be the the le of the ent not ixed is is ome hich hich es a ners ade 020, are ged rade ners e to be pay d in rade are ners ules ners ave date and eeks bmit ping cale sing ASHOK KUMAR 2025.02.06 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27226-202 3. The p 05.02.2025 ashok Whet Whet 23 (O&M) their claim for the grant of inte 18. All the petitions are allowe 19. Pending miscellaneous ap disposed of. 20. A photocopy of this ord connected cases.” The petition is disposed of in terms of Whether speaking : Whether reportable : 4 of interest. allowed in above terms. ous application, if any, also stands is order be placed on the file of rms of Saurabh Sharma (supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ands e of ASHOK KUMAR 2025.02.06 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document