- (1.) By this judgment, we are disposing of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 699, 745 and 746 of 1992 which are directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1094 of 1990 and 363 and 4016 of 1991.
(2.) The claim of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the respondents be directed to count their special pay as pay under Rule 2.44 (a) (i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume 1', Part-I (as applicable to Haryana State) (for short, 'CSR'). They pleaded that once the special pay is regarded as pay, then the respondents should grant consequential relief of paying dearness allowance on the special pay as well. The learned Single Judge held that the special pay cannot be treated as a part of pay and, therefore, the petitioners (appellants herein) are not entitled to any relief.
(3.) On further revision, the pay scale of the Assistant District Attorney was raised to Rs. 1640-2000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and special pay was raised to Rs. 200/-. The appellants filed writ petitions for directing the respondents to treat special pay as part of the pay by asserting that the element of special pay attached to the regular pay scale of the Assistant District Attorney was granted to them not because of arduous nature of duties but in lieu of higher time scale and thus formed part of the pay itself and, therefore, rule 2.52 of the CSR does not cover the special pay granted to them. They further averred that before the revision of their pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986, special pay used to be treated as part of pay and used to earn dearness allowance as well but without any rhyme or reason after the revision of pay scales, the special pay is being treated in isolation and not as part of the pay and that this action of the respondents is arbitrary, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.;