STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALWANT RAI
LAWS(P&H)-1990-4-90
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 26,1990

STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
VERSUS
BALWANT RAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By this Letters Patent Appeal, the State has challenged the order, dated September 1, 1988, by which Writ of Mandamus was issued directing the State to fix the pay of the writ-petitioner at Rs. 2100/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 1580-60-1700-75-2000/100-2400, that is a step higher than the one of the writ-petitioner was drawing as Assistant Advocate-General.
(2.) In order to determine the question raised in this appeal, brief relevant facts are :- Balwant Rai (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge on October 16, 1979 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1580-60-1700/75-2000/100-2400 while he was working as Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab in the pay-scale Rs. 2000-100-2300. The State of Punjab vide its letters dated August 26, 1987 (Copy Annexure P-6) fixed the pay of the petitioner in the time scale of Additional District and Sessions Judge at the rate of Rs. 1580/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 1580-2400 with effect from November 21, 1979. The fixation of pay resulted in reduction of pay of the petitioner by Rs. 420/- per month. The High Court intimated to the Punjab State that the duties and responsibilities of the Additional District and Sessions Judge are higher than those of Assistant Advocate-General. The petitioner claimed protection of his pay in view of Rule 4.4.(c)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, and impugned the fixation of his pay.
(3.) The State of Punjab defended fixing of pay, inter alia contention that since the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Advocate-General in a temporary capacity, and the Head of Department where he was holding the post of Assistant Advocate-General did not issue a certificate to the effect, that he would havwe contined to hold the post of Assistant Advocate-General but for his appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge, the benefit of Rules for pay protection cannot be granted. It was further urged that the rules were not applicable to the facts in the case of the petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.