Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 12 docs - [View All]
Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Kashmiri Lal vs Union Of India on 3 September, 2008
D.R. Nim, I. P. S vs Union Of India on 5 January, 1967
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors on 11 August, 2005
Union Of India vs P.N.Menon on 17 March, 1994

User Queries
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 11 October, 2013

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /1/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: SEPTEMBER 04, 2013

DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 11, 2013

Satbir Singh and others ..........Petitioners

Versus

The State of Punjab and others .......Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 4948, 5925, 6769, 7189, 7708, 8025, 8426, 9551, 10698, 10722, 10760, 14254, 15964, 16948, 18833,18973, 19533, 19596 and 23117 of 2012 and 4805, 13966, 18649 of 2013.

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 14678 and 19181 of 2013.

Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 10841, 10874, 10924 of 2012 and CWP No. 16230 of 2013.

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 20742 of 2012 and 2835 of 2013.

Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 17453 of 2012 and 18287 of 2013.

Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 16516 and 20643 of 2012.

Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 10441, 13916 and 18208 of 2012 and 2184 of 2013.

Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /2/

Nos. 6017, 6606, 6842, 6971, 6995, 7168, 7291, 7302, 7474, 7522, 8002, 8028, 8038, 8498, 8570, 8574, 9555,9763, 10024, 11227, 11235, 11553, 13340, 15481,25212,21238 and 26179 of 2012 and 2171, 2172, 2173, 3866, 4102, 4401, 5264, 6088, 7098, 8134,8135, 8193, 8203, 8334, 8634, 8641, 8647,8749, 8750, 8851,8893, 8905, 8926, 9151, 10271, 10520, 10532, 10596, 11232, 13814, 14307, 15120, 15209, 15550, 16061,16852, 16998, 17407, 17424, 17976, 18160, 18477, 8533, 18801, 19113, 19153, 19356, 19417, 19440, 20106, 20193, 20664, 20721, 20726, 20730, 21058, 21147, 21276, 21575, 21601, 21720, 21727, 22049 and 22311 of 2013.

Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 7999, 8062, 11045, 12550, 20699 and 23096 of 2012.

Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 10723, 14829, 16599, 22726, 23797, 23832 and of 2012 and 12419 of 2013.

Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 21479, 21497 and 25341 of 2012.

Mr. Anuj Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 11037, 17505 of 2012 and 1588,6719, 12779 and 17834 of 2013.

Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 3864,5797, 8154, 8594, 9464, 10797, 13715, 16035,16898, 21159, 24466 of 2012 and 11626 of 2013.

Ms. Riti Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No. 2171, 15633, 21147, 21276, 21575, 21601 of 2013.

Mr. Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 25514 of 2012 and 21201 of 2013.

Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 18546 of 2013.

Mr. M.S. Dhanoa, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No. 11316 of 2012.

Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No. 19514 of 2012.

Mr. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No. 14923 of 2013.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh Verka, Advocate for the petitioners Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /3/

in CWP No. 6145 of 2012.

Mr. Surjit Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No. 16074 of 2012.

Mr. Harish Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 19903 and 25941 of 2012 and 1740, 15099 and 15108 of 2013.

Mr. Amar Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 18007 and 22249 of 2012.

Mr. Shashi Kumar Rattan, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 6471, 6761, 10354, 19093 and 23484 of 2012 and 1492 of 2013.

Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 15511 and 17321 of 2013.

Mr. Vivek Baghla, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 10440 and 10691 of 2012.

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 5600, 6534, 6708, 10827, 10936, 11143, 11238, 11563, 18670, 19799, 20876, 23532, 23497 and 24194 of 2012 and 4641, 6089, 6553, 6784, 7023, 9799, 10759, 15942, 16299, 19124 and 21893 of 2013.

Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 6473, 9377, 9696, 11412 and 19662 of 2012 and 2147, 5286, 9009, 15887, 18689, 19062 and 19440 of 2013.

Mr. Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 17711, 21641 and 23513 of 2012 and 664, 2915, 8211, 17395, 18440 and 19653 of 2013.

Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 12756 and 23927 of 2012.

Mr.Sarvesh K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No. 19344 of 2012.

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 21382 and 21733 of 2013.

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 7443, 10246, 11161 and 12376 of 2012 and 18489 of 2013.

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 5066, 6840, 8601, 9264, 13773, 19152 and 22992 of 2012 and 1202, 4532 and 12545 of Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /4/

2013.

Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 8609, 8610, 11787, 20644 and 21056 of 2012 and 11896 of 2013.

Ms.Charanjit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.18206 of 2012.

Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.10520 of 2013.

Mr.BS Walia, Additional Advocate General, Punjab with Mr.Vivek Swamy, Senior Law Officer, Finance Department, Punjab.

<><><>

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

This order shall dispose of a bunch* * of 268 petitions,

as common issue is involved in all of them. The learned

Additional Advocate General, Punjab has made a statement that

the reply filed in Civil Writ Petition No.4948 of 2012 "Satbir Satbir Singh

and others v. The State of Punjab and others" be adopted for all

the other connected petitions. As such, for the sake of brevity

and convenience, the pleadings in Civil Writ Petition No.4948 of

2012 are being adverted to.

2. The challenge in the petition is to the circular dated

5.10.2011, Annexure P9, to the extent that the benefit of revised

pay scales to the petitioners who are employees of the Education

Department has been granted w.e.f. 1.10.2011. The petitioners

instead claim such benefit w.e.f. 1.1.2006 i.e. the date contained

in the recommendations of the Fifth Punjab Pay Commission (for

short "the

the Commission").

Commission

3. The Commission submitted its report to the

Government on 20.4.2009. As per para 4.12 contained in Chapter Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /5/

4 of the recommendations, the Commission recommended the

implementation of the revised pay scales, retrospectively, w.e.f.

1.1.2006. Under Chapter 5 of the report, higher pay scales were

recommended for various categories of employees including the

category of the petitioners who form part of the teaching

personnel under the State Education Department. It so transpires

that such recommended higher pay scales did not find a mention

in the original report dated 20.4.2009 that was submitted to the

State Government, on account of a typographical mistake.

Accordingly, Member Secretary of the Commission addressed a

communication on the very next day i.e. 21.4.2009, Annexure P2,

to the Chief Secretary, State of Punjab pointing out that in paras

5.31, 5.64 and 8.5 at pages 85, 102 and 159-162 respectively of

the report, there were certain typographical mistakes and the

same have been corrected and a copy has been duly forwarded

so as to ensure that the report of the Commission becomes error

free. It would be pertinent to take note that paras 5.31 and 5.64

were in relation to higher pay scales recommended to certain

employees under the Health and Family Welfare Department and

Education Department, respectively. Para 8.5 was with regard to

Dynamic Career Progression Scheme. The State Government,

Department of Finance issued notification dated 27.5.2009,

Annexure P3, whereby the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay)

Rules, 2009 (for short "2009 2009 Rules")

Rules were notified and the same

were deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2006. As per

2009 Rules, the revised pay structure was made applicable w.e.f.

1.1.2006 as per the Conversion Fitment Table attached as a Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /6/

Schedule to the Rules showing the revised pay structure

corresponding to a particular pre-revised pay scale. The General

Conversion Table appended along with 2009 Rules was devised as

per recommendations of the report of the Commission. However,

the recommended higher pay scales as pointed out in the

communication dated 21.4.2009 at Annexure P2 were not granted

in terms of the notification dated 27.5.2009 by the State

Government. This apparently led to the filing of various

representations, at the individual level as also at the union level

for grant of revised pay scales to the employees of the Education

Department as recommended by the Commission w.e.f.

1.1.2006.

4. The Department of Finance, State of Punjab issued

circular dated 5.10.2011, Annexure P9, whereby the upgraded

revised pay scales recommended by the Commission have been

accepted, but such benefit has been made admissible w.e.f.

1.10.2011. Such circular categorically states that there shall be

no element of retrospectivity and there would be no question of

payment of arrears or of fixation of pay on notional basis from any

previous date.

5. The challenge in the petition is to such circular dated

5.10.2011 limited to the extent of granting the benefit of higher

revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.10.2011 instead of 1.1.2006.

6. The thrust of the argument of all the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the employees has been on the alleged

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been

argued that the State having accepted the recommendations of Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /7/

the Commission as regards revised higher pay scales, it is not

entitled to tamper with the same. It is urged that the acceptance

of the recommendations of the Commission by the State

Government, if at all, has to be in toto, i.e. inclusive of even the

date so recommended for implementation of the revised pay

scales. A plea of discrimination has been raised by contending

that the State Government, while accepting and implementing the

recommendations of the Commission, the benefit of higher pay

scales has been granted to certain categories w.e.f. 1.1.2006,

whereas such benefit has been granted to the petitioners from a

subsequent date i.e. 1.10.2011. Learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners would strenuously contend that the action of the

State Government is arbitrary as the revision of pay scales upon

acceptance of the recommendations of the Commission should

have been given effect to w.e.f. 1.1.2006 across the board and for

all categories. Another limb of the argument raised is that vide

communication dated 21.4.2009, Annexure P2, a typographical

error stood corrected in the original report submitted by the

Commission and as such, the rectification would relate back to

1.1.2006 i.e. the date the recommendations of the Commission

were accepted for all other categories. It has further been argued

that the fixation of the cut-off date contained in the impugned

circular i.e. 1.10.2011 is without any rational or reasonable basis.

7. In support of the contentions raised by learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, reliance has been placed upon the

following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this

Court:

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /8/

1. Purushottam Lal and others v. Union of India and another

(1973) 1 SCC 651;

2. A.R.Lamba, Ex.Assistant Director v. Khadi and Village

Industries Commission, Commission 2004(3) SCT 362;

3. Swaran Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (Civil

Writ Petition No.1283 of 1996 decided by a Division Bench of

this Court on 7.1.1999);

4. Joginder Singh Saini and others v. State of Punjab and others,

1998(4) RSJ 585 and

5. Ajmer Singh v State of Haryana, Haryana 1995(1) SCT 307.

8. Per contra, Mr.BS Walia, learned Additional Advocate

General, Punjab would state that the Commission had devised the

General Conversion Table for revision of pay scales of all

categories of Government employees including that of the

petitioners who belong to the Education Department. Learned

State counsel would refer to the categoric averments contained in

para 3 of the written statement filed on behalf of the State and

submit that such General Conversion Table was implemented vide

Government notification dated 27.5.2009 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for all

Government employees. It is further submitted that the

Commission had recommended upgraded scales of pay for certain

categories of employees which were over and above the pay

scales contained in the General Conversion Table. Stand of the

State Government is that on account of the huge financial

implications that were involved towards grant of such upgraded

pay scales and the "tight financial position" of the State, the

recommendations of the Commission were accepted at a Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /9/

subsequent stage in the light of circular dated 5.10.2011 and by

making the upgraded scales of pay admissible purely on a

prospective basis w.e.f. 1.10.2011. Learned State counsel would

argue that such decision has been adopted on a uniform basis in

respect of all such categories of employees for whom the

Commission had recommended upgraded scales of pay over and

above the General Conversion Table. There is a complete denial

as regards the petitioners, or for that matter, any employee of the

State Government having been discriminated against, with regard

to the grant of the upgraded pay scales.

9. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at

length and the pleadings on record have been perused minutely.

10. From the judicial precedents cited on behalf of the

petitioners, one settled proposition of law that emerges is that if

the State Government makes a reference to an expert body in the

nature of a Pay Commission in respect of all Government

employees and subsequently, accepts the recommendations, it is

bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all

Government employees. If the State Government does not

implement the recommendations of the Commission regarding

some employees only, there would be a breach of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India.

11. Keeping in view such crystalized proposition of law, the

task before this Court, at the very outset, would be to ascertain as

to whether the State Government has implemented the

recommendations of the Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006 qua a

certain category of employees and from a subsequent date for a Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /10/ 10/

different set of employees including the present petitioners.

12. To examine such issue, it would be apposite to refer in

some detail to the backdrop of the setting up of the Commission

and the Scheme of recommendations made by it. Mr.RK Chopra,

learned Senior Advocate has made available to this Court a

complete copy of the report submitted by the Commission.

13. The State had last revised the pay structure of the

employees on the basis of recommendations made by the Fourth

Punjab Pay Commission vide notification dated 19.5.1998. The

Fifth Punjab Pay Commission was constituted by the State

Government in terms of notification dated 19.12.2006. The terms

of reference of the Commission were issued vide notification

dated 3.3.2008 and the same read as under:

i) To examine the principles and the date of effect thereof that should govern the structure of pay, allowances and other facilities/benefits, whether in cash or in kind, to all categories of employees in the State of Punjab to whom the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I apply, except the employees whose scales of pay have been determined on the recommendations of the University Grants Commission;

ii) To suggest ways and means through which services in the State Government departments can be developed as professionalised, citizen-oriented & citizen-friendly with efficiency and efficacy in governance through the use of modern information and communication technologies. While making such suggestions, special emphasis should be on improving the delivery of public services to the people, restructuring/reengineering the Government business processes and promoting service deliveries Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /11/ 11/

in the Public Sector-Private Sector-Partnership mode; iii)To work out a comprehensive and simplified pay package for the categories of State Government employees mentioned in (i) above, linked to the measures that promote efficiency, productivity, accountability, responsibility, service orientation discipline and transparency; iv)While making recommendations, the financial condition of the State, having regard to the provisions of the Punjab Fiscal Responsibilities and Budget Management Act, 2003, be kept in view. To curb non-productive expenditure, the Commission shall suggest a cap on expenditure on salaries, wages and pensions as a percentage of Revenue Receipts of the State and other economy measures to fund the additional expenditure on the implementation of its recommendations. While doing so, new staffing structures/norms may be suggested, having regard to changed role of the Government and I.T. application; v)To examine the principles which should govern the structure of pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, family pension and other terminal or recurring benefits having financial implications to the present and former State Government employees, appointed before January 1, 2004;

vi)To examine the Assured Career Progression

Scheme; and

vii)To examine the issue of Fixed Medical

Allowance/reimbursement of medical expenditure

along with the aspect of other better alternatives/

possibilities such as Medical Insurance etc. in this

regard."

14.

Malik Sushama Rani Chapter 4 of the report submitted by the Commission 2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /12/ 12/

deals with the recommendations of Pay Structure, Fixation and

Age of Retirement. As per para 4.10, the revised basic pay of an

employee is to consist of two components, one as Pay in the Pay

Band and the other as Grade Pay attached to the post of an

employee. Under para 4.12, the Commission recommended that

the revised pay scales be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Para 4.14

provides a General Conversion Table i.e. a brief summary of the

Pay Bands, the Grade Pay and grouping applicable to the

corresponding unrevised pay scales of the employees. The

Commission recommended the fixation of the pay in the revised

pay scales of the existing employees as per the Fitment Tables

given at the end of Chapter 4. Chapter 5 of the report contains

recommendations on upgradation and change in designation. In

para 5.1 of Chapter 5, the Commission takes note of the fact that

it did not receive any representation/petition/memorandum from

employees of certain Departments of the State i.e. Housing and

Urban Development; Tourism; Defence Services Welfare; Local

Government; Civil Aviation; Science, Technology, Environment

and Non-conventional Energy; Parliamentary Affairs; Removal of

Grievances; Non-resident Indian's Affairs; Programme

Implementation and Architecture. Accordingly, the Commission

recommended that the pay scales of the employees of the afore-

noticed Departments would be determined as per the General

Conversion/Fitment Tables furnished in Chapter 4. However, the

request/demands of employees of other Departments were dealt

with by the Commission and in the case of some Departments

were even accepted to a certain extent. By way of instance, Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /13/ 13/

under para 5.13, the Commission recommended that the post of

Joint Directors (Statistics) in the Directorate of Agriculture be

upgraded from `10025-15100 to `13500-18600 at par with other

Joint Directors. Likewise, it was also recommended that the

Tubewell Boring staff and different categories within Group 'D',

namely, Well Borer, Office Borer/Mate and Helper be merged and

re-designated as Boring Mate in the unrevised pay scale of `2720-

4260 while the category of employees, such as Hamerman, Store

Khilasi be merged and re-designated as Boring Helper in the

unrevised pay scale of `2620-4140. Under the Department of

Home Affairs and Justice, the Commission in para 5.24

recommended a higher grade for Director of the Forensic

Laboratory and in the Police Force also, recommended upgraded

pay scales for the post of Constables, Head Constables, Assistant

Sub Inspectors, Sub Inspectors and Inspectors in the light of

scales given by the Government of India. Under para 5.30 and

5.31, employees of Health and Family Welfare Department

holding designation of Junior Analytical Assistant, Senior

Analytical Assistant, Analyst, Deputy Public Analyst, Assistant

Chemical Examiner, Deputy Chemical examiner, Public Analyst,

Government Analyst apart from Nursing Staff were also

recommended higher pay scales. Likewise, under para 5.64, the

employees falling to the category of the petitioners under the

Education Department were also recommended higher pay scale.

A similar recommendation was made for employees of the

Department of Medical Education and Research under para 5.69

and in the light thereof, the Director, Medical Education and Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /14/ 14/

Research, Principals of Government Medical Colleges and

Teachers in Medical Education and Research were recommended

parity in the pay scales with equivalent posts under Government

of India. It would be pertinent to note at this stage that the

recommendations of higher pay scales/upgraded pay scales as

specifically noticed hereinabove were over and above the pay

scales in the General Conversion/Fitment Tables furnished in

Chapter 4 of the report.

15. The categoric stand of the State Government is that

the recommendations as regards upgraded scales over and above

the General Conversion/Fitment Tables contained in Chapter 5 of

the report of the Commission have been accepted and

implemented but w.e.f. 1.10.2011 in the light of circular dated

5.10.2011 at Annexure P9. It is only the revised scales as per

General Conversion Table/Fitment Table formulated by the

Commission that has been granted to all categories of

Government employees w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in the light of Government

notification dated 27.5.2009. Such categoric assertion and stand

taken in the written statement filed on behalf of the State has not

met with any rebuttal by the petitioners. Learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners have not been able to advert to even

a single instance wherein the upgraded/higher revised pay scales

as recommended by the Commission over and above the revised

scales contained in the General Conversion/Fitment Tables may

have been granted to any category of employees w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

16. To the contrary, Mr.Walia, learned Additional Advocate

General, Punjab, during the course of hearing, produced before Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /15/ 15/

the Court various circulars carrying even date i.e. 5.10.2011 in

terms of which the recommendations of the Commission for grant

of upgraded scales have been implemented w.e.f. 1.10.2011 in

respect of employees of different Departments. A reference to

the same would be necessary.

Circular No. Date of Implemented Department Name of the Issuance of with effect from posts circular

No.5/10/09- 05/10/11 01/10/11 Health Pharmacist 5FP1/670 Services & Multipurpose

Family

Health Worker

Welfare,

(Male &

Punjab,

Female)

Chandigarh

No.5/10/09- 05/10/11 01/10/11 Health Junior 5FP1/691 Services & Analytical Family Assistant Welfare,

Senior

Punjab,

Analytical

Chandigarh

Assistant

Analyst

Deputy Public

Analyst

Assistant

Chemical

Examiner

Deputy

Chemical

Examiner

Government

Analyst

No.5/10/09- 05/10/11 01/10/11 Agriculture, Joint Director 5FP1/675 Punjab, (Statistics) Chandigarh

No.5/10/09- 05/10/11 01/10/11 Department Deputy 5FP1/696 of Home Director Affairs &

Director

Justice,

Chandigarh

17. The position that emerges is that the entire edifice

built by the petitioners in terms of contending that certain

categories of employees have been granted the benefit of

upgraded pay scales, upon acceptance of the recommendations

of the Commission, w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as opposed to certain other Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /16/ 16/

categories like that of the petitioners under the Education

Department with effect from a subsequent date i.e. 1.10.2011, is

based on a factually incorrect premise. Equally mis-placed and

without merit is the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners

that the typographical error that stood corrected vide letter dated

21.4.2009 at Annexure P2 was to relate back to 1.1.2006 i.e. the

date of implementation recommended by the Commission. This

is, precisely, for the reason that even with respect to categories of

employees of other Departments i.e. Agriculture, Home Affairs

and Justice, Medical Education of Research and where there was

no error in the original report dated 20.4.2009, even for such

employees the upgraded/revised pay scales have been made

admissible w.e.f. 1.10.2011.

18. As such, this Court would have no hesitation in holding

that the action of the State Government is neither arbitrary nor

discriminatory and there has been no breach of Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution of India insofar as the date of implementation

of the upgraded pay scales for different categories of employees

in the light of the recommendations of the Commission are

concerned.

19. The only issue that now survives for consideration is as

to whether it was open for the State to have accepted and

implemented the recommendations of the Commission as regards

revised/upgraded pay scales but from a subsequent date to the

one indicated in the recommendations itself?

20. Admittedly, the terms of reference of the Commission

were not only to make recommendations as regards revised Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /17/ 17/

structure of pay but even included the examination as regards the

date of effect of such recommendations against the backdrop of

the financial condition of the State. The Commission has

recommended that the revised pay scales be implemented w.e.f.

1.1.2006.

21. The Commission is in the nature of an expert body that

would undertake the intricate exercise of evaluating the relevant

parameters viz. qualifications, mode of recruitment, degree of

responsibility, job content etc. while recommending a particular

pay scale/higher pay scale for a certain category of employees.

However, such recommendations would not be binding upon the

State Government. It would be open for the State Government to

deviate from the recommendations made by the Commission but

on a rational and cogent basis. In KS Krishnaswamy v. Union of

India and another, 2007(1) SCT 353, 353 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed:

"It is well settled principle of law that recommendations of the Pay Commission are subject to the acceptance/rejection with modifications of the appropriate Government."

22. In Union of India v. P.N.Menon and others, 1994(4)

SCT 91, a question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with

regard to fixing of cut-off date for payment of gratuity and

pension which had been stipulated as 30th September, 1997.

While repelling the challenge to the fixation of such date, it was

observed as under:

"Whenever the Government or an authority which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 Malik Sushama Rani of the Constitution, frames a scheme for persons who 2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /18/ 18/

have superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such any revised scheme in respect of post-retirement benefits, if implemented with a cut-off date, which can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. It shall not amount to "picking out a date from the hat" as was said by this Court in the case of D.R. Nim v. Union of India, in connection with fixation of seniority. Whenever a revision takes places, a cut-off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government."

23. In PN Menon's case(supra), such principle was held to

apply even in respect of revision of scales of pay and it had been

observed to the following effect:

"Not only in matters of revising the pensionary benefits, but even in respect of revision of scales of pay, a cut-off date on some rational or reasonable basis, has to be fixed for extending the benefits."

24. Financial resources/implications would be a relevant

criterion for the State Government to determine as to what

benefits can be granted pursuant to or in furtherance of the

recommendations made by a Commission and with effect from

which date. In State of Punjab and others v. Amar Nath Goyal

and others, (2005) 6 SCC 754, 754 the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon

consideration of a large number of decisions had opined as

follows:

"It is trite that, the final recommendations of the Pay Commission were not ipso facto binding on the Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /19/ 19/

Government as the Government had to accept and implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission consistent with its financial position."

25. Chapter 2 of the report submitted by the Commission

deals with the Economy of the State and its Fiscal Health. The

Commission has noticed that the State of Punjab has experienced

an erosion in terms of per capita income over the years. In para

2.13 contained in Chapter 2, the Commission takes stock of the

Fiscal Health and observes that Punjab Economy has been

experiencing deceleration in its rate of growth and its high profile

sector, namely, agriculture has been passing through a turbulent

period. The industrial sector has also been stagnating.

Commission further notices in para 2.14 that the visible symptom

of Fiscal stress is the magnitude of the revenue deficit. It was

`450 crores in 1995-96 and has been increasing ever since. In

para 2.18, the Commission notices the trend of the revenue and

fiscal deficits and opines that such trend is non-sustainable in the

long run and may result in pushing the State into a debt trap. The

Commission in spite of taking stock of the grim financial scenario

of the State, still paints an optimistic picture in paras 2.29/2.32

and exudes confidence as regards the Government's capacity to

meet the additional liability likely to accrue on account of

implementations of the recommendations of the Commission on

four parameters. Firstly, the Commission observes that the State

had huge potential for additional resources which need to be

tapped by devising suitable tax policies. Secondly, the

Commission banks on the likelihood of the State getting more

resources from the Centre on the recommendations of the 13th Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /20/ 20/

National Finance Commission so as to ease the fiscal burden.

Thirdly, the Government by implementing the recommendations

of its Expenditure Reforms Commission would contain

unproductive expenditure and lastly, the Commission seems

sanguine that the implementation of the recommendations of the

Commission itself would encourage employees to work with

added dedication and integrity so that tangible improvements in

the delivery of public services and higher productivity would help

in reducing the fiscal deficit and accelerating the rate of growth in

the economy.

26. It is on such broad and overly optimistic reasoning that

the Commission has recommended 1.1.2006 as the date for

implementation of the revised pay scales. Be that as it may, the

final obiter as regards the financial resources available and

financial implications resulting upon acceptance and

implementation of the recommendations of the Commission

would be the employer/State. In the reply, the State has in no

uncertain terms referred to the huge financial implications upon

grant of upgraded pay scales coupled with the grim financial

health. It has been stated that an Implementation Committee

was constituted by the Government to consider and implement

the recommendations of the Commission and as such, a conscious

decision was taken to grant the pay scales recommended as per

General Conversion Table w.e.f. 1.1.2006 vide notification dated

27.5.2009. The pay scales recommended over and above the

General Conversion Table in respect of certain categories of

employees have been granted vide circular dated 5.10.2011 and Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /21/ 21/

made admissible w.e.f. 1.10.2011. The categoric plea is that the

Government was not in a position to implement and grant such

scales from a retrospective date i.e. 1.1.2006 as recommended by

the Commission. In para 1 of the preliminary submissions

contained in the reply, a sum of `6,23,02267/- (six crores, twenty

three lacs, two thousand two hundred and sixty seven) has been

quantified as the financial liability only as regards the petitioners

in Civil Writ Petition No.4948 of 2012 if the upgraded pay scales

were to be granted w.e.f. 1.1.2006. For that matter, in Chapter

11 of the report submitted by the Commission, the financial

implications upon acceptance of the recommendations have been

indicated and in para 11.4, the Commission itself has estimated

that the arrears on account of salary increase for the period

1.1.2006 to 31.3.2009 would be `3450 crores. This is a

staggering and humongous amount.

27. The State Government has taken a decision not to

implement and grant the upgraded pay scales over and above

the General Conversion Table as recommended by the

Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in the light of its financial position. In

such situation, this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary writ

jurisdiction would not step in to issue a writ of mandamus to

command the State otherwise. The decision of the State cannot

be said to be vitiated by any extraneous consideration or

perverse appreciation of the financial circumstances prevailing.

This Court does not find any basis that would warrant interference

in the same.

28. Before parting with the judgment, there is one aspect Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /22/ 22/

of the matter which would require intervention. In this bunch of

petitions, it is noticed that in respect of certain categories of

employees benefit of upgraded pay structure over and above the

General Conversion Table has been made admissible w.e.f.

1.11.2011/1.12.2011. In the reply filed in Civil Writ Petition

No.4948 of 2012, the stand of the State Government is

unequivocal that the pay scales as per General Conversion Table

devised by the Commission stand implemented vide Government

notification dated 27.5.2009 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for all Government

employees. Further stand is that the upgraded scales of pay

recommended by the Commission over and above the General

Conversion Table have been made admissible w.e.f. 1.10.2011 on

a uniform basis. The State Government would be held bound by

such stand. Accordingly, it is directed that in respect of any such

category of employees in this bunch of petitions wherein the

upgraded pay scale had been recommended by the Commission

over and above the General Conversion Table, the same shall be

made admissible w.e.f. 1.10.2011 to ensure uniformity. The

requisite corrective action/orders in this regard would be issued

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this

order.

29. But for such limited intervention as indicated

hereinabove, there is no merit in these petitions and the same

are, accordingly, dismissed.

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) OCTOBER 11, 2013 JUDGE SRM

Note:

Malik Sushama Rani

Whether referred to the Reporter? (Yes/No) 2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /23/ 23/

*

List of connected Cases

CWP 4948-2012

SATBIR SINGH AND ORS. -(1)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. (with following cases) CWP - 5066 - 2012

JASWANT SINGH AND ORS. (2)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 5600 - 2012

SHAMSHER SINGH AND ORS. (3)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 5797 - 2012

DEEP CHAND & ORS.

(4)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 5925 - 2012

SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS. (5)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS CWP - 6017 - 2012

SUKHDIP SINGH & ORS.

(6)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CWP - 6145 - 2012

AMAR SINGH AND ORS.

(7)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 6471 - 2012

OM LAL AND OTHERS

(8)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 6473 - 2012

AJIT SINGH & ORS

(9)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 6534 - 2012

SAMAI SINGH AND ORS.

(10)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 6606 - 2012

KANWALJIT KAUR & ORS. (11)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CWP - 6708 - 2012

PAWAN KUAMR GARG AND ORS. (12)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /24/ 24/

CWP - 6761 - 2012

SURINDER SINGH AND ORS. (13)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 6769 - 2012

BALRAM KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. (14)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 6840 - 2012

SURAT SINGH AND OTHERS (15)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 6842 - 2012

SUKHBIR KAUR AND OTHERS (16)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP - 6971 - 2012

HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS (17)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 6995 - 2012

SUKHMINDER SINGH & ORS. (18)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CWP - 7168 - 2012

SAROJ BALA AND OTHERS (19)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP - 7189 - 2012

DHARAM PAL AND ORS.

(20)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 7291 - 2012

BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS (21)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP - 7302 - 2012

SATPAL SINGH AND OTHERS (22)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP - 7443 - 2012

BHAG SINGH AND OTHERS (23)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 7474 - 2012

MALKIT SINGH & ORS.

(24)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CWP - 7522 - 2012

PARMINDER SINGH & ORS. (25)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /25/ 25/

CWP - 7708 - 2012

RAMESH CHANDER AND ORS (26)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 7999 - 2012

PRITAM SINGH & ORS.

(27)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 8002 - 2012

MADHU AND ORS.

(28)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 8025 - 2012

VIKASH DHAWAN & ORS.

(29)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 8028 - 2012

NIRMAL KANTA AND ORS. (30)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 8038 - 2012

HARI NARAIN AND ORS.

(31)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 8062 - 2012

SWINDER SINGH & ORS.

(32)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 8154 - 2012

RAM CHAND AND OTHERS

(33)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 8426 - 2012

MANJIT SINGH AND ORS. (34)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8498 - 2012

SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHER (35)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP - 8570 - 2012

TARLOCHAN SINGH AND OTHERS (36)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP - 8574 - 2012

RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS (37)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP - 8594 - 2012

SATPAL HANDA AND OTHERS (38)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /26/ 26/

CWP - 8601 - 2012

BASANT SINGH AND ORS. (39)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8609 - 2012

HARMINDER PAL SINGH & ORS. (40)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 8610 - 2012

HARMESH LAL

(41)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 9264 - 2012

AMARJIT KAUR & ORS.

(42)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 9377 - 2012

ONKAR SINGH AND ORS.

(43)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 9464 - 2012

PARMINDER CHOUHAN AND ORS. (44)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 9551 - 2012

GURJIT SINGH & ORS.

(45)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 9555 - 2012

CHARANJIT SINGH & ORS. (46)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CWP - 9696 - 2012

RAM NATH MITTAL & ORS. (47)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 9763 - 2012

PRITAM SINGH AND ORS. (48)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 10024 - 2012

SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.

(49)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CWP - 10246 - 2012

KAHAN CHAND & ORS.

(50)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 10354 - 2012

DALJIT SINGH AND ORS. (51)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /27/ 27/

CWP - 10440 - 2012

MADAN LAL GAGNEJA & ORS. (52)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 10441 - 2012

MOHINDER PAL ETC.

(53)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

CWP - 10691 - 2012

BANTA SINGH & ORS.

(54)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 10698 - 2012

LACHHMAN SINGH & ORS. (55)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 10722 - 2012

INDER SINGH & ORS.

(56)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 10723 - 2012

HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. (57)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 10760 - 2012

SARUP SINGH & ORS.

(58)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 10797 - 2012

JASVIR SINGH AND ORS. (59)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 10827 - 2012

MEGH SINGH AND OTHERS (60)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 10841 - 2012

HARDEEP SINGH AND ORS. (61)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 10874 - 2012

DALIP SINGH AND ORS.

(62)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 10924 - 2012

BALRAJ KUMAR AND ORS. (63)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 10936 - 2012

SUMER CHAND AND OTHERS (64)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /28/ 28/

CWP - 11037 - 2012

RAJ KUMAR VERMA AND ORS (65)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 11045 - 2012

PARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS. (66)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

CWP - 11143 - 2012

AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS (67)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 11161 - 2012

BRIJ BHUSHAN AND ORS. (68)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 11227 - 2012

ANU BALA AND ORS.

(69)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 11235 - 2012

OM PARKASH AND OTHERS (70)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP - 11238 - 2012

MALKIT SINGH AND ORS. (71)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 11316 - 2012

CHARANJIT KAUR AND ORS. (72)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 11412 - 2012

DILBAGH SINGH AND ORS. (73)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 11553 - 2012

JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS (74)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP - 11563 - 2012

HARBANS KAUR AND ORS. (75)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 11787 - 2012

KARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS. (76)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 12376 - 2012

SUDESH KUMARI AND ORS. (77)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /29/ 29/

CWP - 12550 - 2012

MASSA SINGH AND ORS.

(78)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

CWP - 12756 - 2012

BALDEV SINGH ETC.

(79)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

CWP - 13340 - 2012

PARAMJIT KAUR AND ORS. (80)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 13715 - 2012

JOGINDER SINGH AND ORS. (81)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 13773 - 2012

MOHINDER SINGH & ORS. (82)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 13916 - 2012

KESAR RAM ETC.

(83)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

CWP - 14254 - 2012

USHA RANI AND ORS.

(84)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 14829 - 2012

RINKLE JAIN & ORS.

(85)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 15481 - 2012

CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS. (86)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 15964 - 2012

RAJINDER KUMAR AND ORS. (87)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 16035 - 2012

MALKEET KAUR AND OTHERS (88)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 16074 - 2012

ISWAR DEV WADVA & ORS. (89)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 16516 - 2012

DEEPAK ANAND AND ORS. (90)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /30/ 30/

CWP - 16599 - 2012

PIARA SINGH AND ORS.

(91)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 16898 - 2012

RAVI WAHI AND ORS.

(92)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 16948 - 2012

ONKAR NATH & ORS.

(93)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 17453 - 2012

BALVIR SINGH AND ORS. (94)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 17505 - 2012

CHANDER MOHAN AND ORS. (95)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 17711 - 2012

SOMESH KUMAR AND ORS. (96)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18007 - 2012

SAT PAL AND ORS.

(97)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18206 - 2012

INDER SINGH

(98)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

CWP - 18208 - 2012

JASWINDER KAUR AND ORS. (99)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18670 - 2012

AMARJIT SINGH AND ORS. (100)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18833 - 2012

PARAMJIT KAUR & ORS.

(101)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 18973 - 2012

PIARA SINGH & ORS.

(102)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 19093 - 2012

KAILASH KAUR AND ORS. (103)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /31/ 31/

CWP - 19152 - 2012

TEJA SINGH AND ORS.

(104)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 19344 - 2012

NEELAM BALI ETC

(105)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

CWP - 19514 - 2012

DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. (106)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 19533 - 2012

KASHMIR SINGH AND OTHERS (107)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 19596 - 2012

JASMEET SINGH AND ORS. (108)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 19662 - 2012

SANTOKH SINGH & ORS.

(109)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 19722 - 2012

GURDIP SINGH AND ORS. (110)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 19799 - 2012

RAJWINDER SINGH & ORS. (111)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 19903 - 2012

MOHINDER SETHI AND ORS. (112)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 20643 - 2012

MAJOR SINGH & ORS.

(113)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 20644 - 2012

LALIT KUMAR AND ORS.

(114)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 20699 - 2012

KARNAIL SINGH & ORS.

(115)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

CWP - 20742 - 2012

MANJIT SINGH & ORS.

(116)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /32/ 32/

CWP - 20876 - 2012

NANAK SINGH AND ORS.

(117)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21056 - 2012

SHIVRAJ SINGH AND ORS. (118)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21159 - 2012

ETT ADHYAPAK UNION PUNJAB (119)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 21238 - 2012

SURINDER JIT KAUR AND ORS. (120)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CWP - 21479 - 2012

RAJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. (121)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21497 - 2012

JANAK RAJ AND ORS.

(122)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21641 - 2012

GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS (123)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 22249 - 2012

MEHAR CHAND BAHIA AND ORS. (124)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 22726 - 2012

AVTAR SINGH AND ORS.

(125)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 22992 - 2012

SUKHWINDER SINGH & ORS. (126)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 23096 - 2012

BALRAM AND ORS.

(127)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

CWP - 23117 - 2012

PARMESHWAR KAUR AND ORS. (128)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 23484 - 2012

SUBJINDER SINGH AND ORS. (129)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /33/ 33/

CWP - 23497 - 2012

SUDESH KUMAR GARG AND ORS. (130)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 23513 - 2012

KULDEEP KAUR & ORS.

(131)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 23532 - 2012

AVTAR SINGH AND ORS.

(132)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 23797 - 2012

KAMAL CHAND AND ORS.

(133)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 23832 - 2012

HARPAL SINGH AND ORS. (134)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 23927 - 2012

SUKHDARSHAN KAUR & ORS. (135)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

CWP - 24194 - 2012

MANJU GARG AND ORS.

(136)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 24466 - 2012

AJAY KUMAR DAWAR AND ORS. (137)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 25212 - 2012

SURESH KUMAR AND ORS. (138)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CWP - 25341 - 2012

CHANDER SHEKHAR & ORS. (139)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 25514 - 2012

JASWANT SINGH & ORS.

(140)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 25941 - 2012

UMESH CHANDER AND ORS. (141)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CWP - 26179 - 2012

SAROJ BALA AND ORS.

(142)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /34/ 34/

CWP - 664 - 2013

YUVRAJ SHARMA AND ORS. (143)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 1202 - 2013

SUKHWINDER SINGH AND ORS. (144)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 1492 - 2013

CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS. (145)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 1588 - 2013

SUKHJIT SINGH AND ORS. (146)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CWP - 1740 - 2013

SATISH KUMAR SAINI AND OTHERS (147)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 2133 - 2013

ANAND JAIN AND ORS.

(148)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 2147 - 2013

RAJINDER DEV & ORS.

(149)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 2171 - 2013

PUSHPA KUMARI AND ORS. (150)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 2172 - 2013

JAWAHAR LAL SINGLA AND ORS. (151)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 2173 - 2013

NACHHATTAR SINGH AND ORS. (152)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 2184 - 2013

HARKEERAT KAUR ETC

(153)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

CWP - 2835 - 2013

GURDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS (154)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 2915 - 2013

RANJIT KAUR AND ORS.

(155)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /35/ 35/

CWP - 3864 - 2013

GURBACHAN SINGH AND ORS. (156)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 3866 - 2013

AMARJIT SINGH AND ORS. (157)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CWP - 4102 - 2013

SURINDER KAUR AND ORS. (158)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CWP - 4401 - 2013

JAGJIWAN LAL AND ORS. (159)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 4532 - 2013

JOGINDER SINGH AND ORS. (160)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 4641 - 2013

SHASHI BALA AND ORS.

(161)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 4805 - 2013

DARSHAN KAUR AND ORS. (162)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 5264 - 2013

PARVEEN LATA AND ORS. (163)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CWP - 5286 - 2013

VIJAY MARJARA ETC

(164)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

CWP - 6088 - 2013

NEELAM KUMARI AND ORS. (165)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CWP - 6089 - 2013

SUKHDEV RAJ GOYAL AND ORS. (166)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 6553 - 2013

INDERJIT KAUR AND ORS. (167)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 6661 - 2013

BHAGWAN SINGH AND ORS. (168)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /36/ 36/

CWP - 6719 - 2013

RAJBIR KAUR AND ORS.

(169)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CWP - 6784 - 2013

REETA SHARMA AND ORS. (170)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 7023 - 2013

RAJ KUMAR AND ORS.

(171)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 7098 - 2013

TRI BHAWANJOT KAUR AND ORS. (172)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CWP - 8134 - 2013

BARJINDER KAUR AND ORS. (173)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8135 - 2013

RAM LAL AND ORS.

(174)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8193 - 2013

MEENA KUMARI AND ORS. (175)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8203 - 2013

CHARANJIT KAUR AND ORS. (176)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8211 - 2013

PREM KUMAR AND OTHERS (177)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 8334 - 2013

LAJWANTI SETHI & ORS. (178)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 8404 - 2013

JASWANT SINGH AND ORS. (179)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8634 - 2013

SATINDER KAUR AND ORS. (180)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8641 - 2013

HARJIT SINGH AND ORS. (181)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /37/ 37/

CWP - 8647 - 2013

SUKHPAL SINGH AND ORS. (182)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8749 - 2013

ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.

(183)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8750 - 2013

GURCHARAN SINGH AND ORS. (184)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8851 - 2013

KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. (185)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8893 - 2013

AVTAR SINGH AND ORS.

(186)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8905 - 2013

NEELAM GUPTA AND ORS. (187)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 8926 - 2013

SHIMLA DEVI AND ORS.

(188)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 9009 - 2013

BALVIR KAUR & ORS.

(189)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 9151 - 2013

RAMANJEET KAUR & ORS. (190)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 9799 - 2013

RACHHPAL SINGH AND ORS. (191)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 10271 - 2013

DHARAM CHAND AND ORS. (192)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 10520 - 2013

HARNEK SINGH AND ORS. (193)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 10532 - 2013

LAKHA SINGH AND ORS.

(194)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /38/ 38/

CWP - 10596 - 2013

RAMESH CHANDER AND ORS. (195)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 10759 - 2013

BHARPOOR SINGH AND ORS. (196)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 11074 - 2013

RAJ KUMAR & ORS.

(197)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CWP - 11232 - 2013

SARBJIT SINGH AND ORS. (198)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 11626 - 2013

JAGDEEP SINGH & ORS.

(199)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 11896 - 2013

BIMAL KISHORE AND ORS. (200)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 12419 - 2013

RAM SINGH AND ORS.

(201)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 12545 - 2013

RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. (202)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

CWP - 12779 - 2013

PRITAM CHAND SAINI & ORS. (203)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR CWP - 13814 - 2013

VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS.

(204)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 13966 - 2013

NACHHATTAR SINGH AND ORS. (205)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 14307 - 2013

MANDIP SINGH AND OTHERS (206)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 14678 - 2013

MALKIAT SINGH

(207)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /39/ 39/

CWP - 14923 - 2013

VINESH MODGIL AND ORS. (208)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 15099 - 2013

PURAN CHAND AND OTHERS (209)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 15108 - 2013

SHANTI PARKASH AND OTHERS (210)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 15120 - 2013

ANITA JAIN & ORS.

(211)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 15209 - 2013

PARAMJIT KAUR AND ORS. (212)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 15511 - 2013

BALWINDER KUMAR & ORS. (213)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 15550 - 2013

KULJEET KAUR AND OTHERS (214)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 15633 - 2013

VANDANA RANI & ORS.

(215)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 15887 - 2013

NIRMAL & ORS.

(216)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 15942 - 2013

SARLA DEVI AND ORS.

(217)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 16061 - 2013

SARABJIT KAUR AND OTHERS (218)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 16062 - 2013

RAM GOPAL AND OTHERS

(219)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 16230 - 2013

RAMESH KUMAR & ORS.

(220)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /40/ 40/

CWP - 16299 - 2013

HARJIT SINGH & ORS.

(221)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 16852 - 2013

BHIM CHAND AND OTHERS (222)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 16998 - 2013

GURMAIL SINGH & ORS.

(223)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

CWP - 17321 - 2013

HARMEET SINGH & ORS.

(224)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 17395 - 2013

LALIT KUMAR & ORS.

(225)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 17407 - 2013

RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS. (226)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 17424 - 2013

PRABHJOT KAUR AND ORS. (227)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 17834 - 2013

GURMUKH SINGH & ORS.

(228)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR CWP - 17976 - 2013

SAROJ & ORS.

(229)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 18160 - 2013

JASBIR KAUR AND OTHERS (230)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP - 18287 - 2013

BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS. (231)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB THRO SECRETARY TO GOVT. & ORS. CWP - 18440 - 2013

JASPREET KAUR AND ORS. (232)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18477 - 2013

BALWINDER KAUR AND ORS. (233)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /41/ 41/

CWP - 18489 - 2013

BHARAT BHUSHAN AND ORS. (234)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18533 - 2013

ANIL KUMAR AND ORS.

(235)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18546 - 2013

RASHMI GOYAL

(236)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18649 - 2013

PRABHDEEP SINGH AND ORS. (237)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18689 - 2013

NIRMALA DEVI AND ORS. (238)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 18801 - 2013

JASBIR SINGH & ORS.

(239)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 19062 - 2013

SWARN KAUR AND ORS.

(240)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 19088 - 2013

MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS. (241)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 19113 - 2013

HARMANDER SINGH & ORS. (242)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 19124 - 2013

RAJ DULARI AND ORS.

(243)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 19153 - 2013

MANJIT KAUR & ORS.

(244)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 19181 - 2013

KIRANDEEP KAUR & ORS. (245)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CWP - 19356 - 2013

LAKHVIR SINGH AND ORS. (246)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /42/ 42/

CWP - 19417 - 2013

SURJAN SINGH AND ORS. (247)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 19440 - 2013

SURINDER KAUR AND ORS. -248

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 19653 - 2013

BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS. 249)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 20106 - 2013

RANJU BALA AND ORS.

250)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 20193 - 2013

GURJANT SINGH AND ORS. 251)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 20664 - 2013

JARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. 252)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 20721 - 2013

NARINDER SINGH AND ORS. 253)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 20726 - 2013

HAKAM SINGH AND ORS.

254)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 20730 - 2013

ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.

255)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21058 - 2013

DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS. 256)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21147 - 2013

JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS. 257)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21201 - 2013

AMARJIT SINGH AND ORS. 258)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21276 - 2013

RAJESH GIRI AND ORS.

259)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4948 of 2012 /43/ 43/

CWP - 21382 - 2013

KARAMJEET SINGH AND ORS. 260)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21575 - 2013

BALWINDER KAUR AND ORS. 261)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21601 - 2013

MUKHTAR SINGH AND ORS. 262)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21720 - 2013

ACHINT RAJ AND ORS.

263)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21727 - 2013

SHIV KUMAR AND ORS.

264)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21733 - 2013

SUNITA AND ORS.

265)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 21893 - 2013

SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. 266)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 22049 - 2013

NAVPREET SINGH AND ORS. 267)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. CWP - 22311 - 2013

BHAGIRATH RAM AND ORS. 268)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) OCTOBER 11, 2013 JUDGE SRM

Malik Sushama Rani

2013.10.11 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document