Reassess denial of pay scale revision to surplus staff: High Court to Haryana
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, April 29
More than 25 years after the Haryana Government came out with instructions denying benefit of pay scale revision pursuant to the Fifth Pay Commission report to employees declared surplus, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chief Secretary to consider the issue afresh.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said the instructions under challenge were applicable to all public sector undertakings/instrumentalities of the State. As such, it would “have a huge financial impact upon the State exchequer”. But the settled law and the rights of employees could not be sacrificed only because of paucity of funds and impact on the exchequer.
Misconceived contention
The argument… that it was on humanitarian grounds, and granting of benefit to the employees declared surplus to continue on the same post till the time when actually they were retrenched, and therefore, they cannot claim the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission is concerned, the same prima facie appears to be misconceived. —Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Justice Puri said the instructions dated October 12, 1998, were required to be reconsidered, especially as it affected not only upon present respondents, but also “many other public sector undertakings /instrumentalities of the State”.
“It is directed that the Haryana Chief Secretary shall consider the issue in its totality and afresh by associating all the affected stakeholders/public sector undertakings /instrumentalities of the State and take a conscious decision on the basis of the well-established principles of law and also in the light of a Supreme Court judgment,” Justice Puri asserted.
The direction came on a petition against the State of Haryana, a federation and other respondents by the Samayojit Karamchari Sangathan Haryana through counsel Shivam Malik for quashing, among other things, the impugned instructions, only to the extent that it denied the benefit of pay scale revision from January 1, 1996, to the surplus employees.
The Bench was told that the employees, working as salesmen, continued till 2001-02 after being declared surplus in 1989. They were granted the benefit till the Fourth Pay Commission report. But were declined the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission report on the grounds that the government had issued the impugned notification.
The State and another counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the salesmen, not required, continued to discharge their duties. But it was a kind of benefit conferred upon them to earn livelihood. They were declared surplus as most of the respondent-federation’s outlets were closed down. They continued in service till 2001-02 and this was the reason why it was decided not to grant the benefit to those declared surplus.
