- (1.) This Court, vide order dated 31.5.2012 passed in CWP No.21978 of 2010, allowed the writ petition in following terms:- "1. The issue involved in both the writ petitions, namely, the entitlement of the revised scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has been a subject of decision by this Court in Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others in LPA No.1360 of 2009 dated 22.03.2012. In terms of the said judgment, the petitioners will be entitled to reckoning of the revised scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the arrears shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. The writ petitions are allowed on the above terms."
(2.) The operative part of the order dated 22.3.2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1360 of 2009 reads thus:- "We have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the contesting parties. This Court would not sit in appeal over the decision of the administrator and the scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution would always be confined to the decision making process rather than the decision itself as well as the relevance of the reasons which had prompted a particular decision rather than sufficiency or adequacy of the said reasons. This is the settled law so far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is concerned though we have usefully gained by reminding ourselves of the basic principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction. In the present case the order Annexure P-3 passed by the Registrar indicates that the existing scales of pay of the employees of the bank had been substituted by the revised scales of pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006. If the old scales had been replaced by new scales of pay effective from a particular date, there is a vested right in an employee to receive the new scale of pay from the date from which it has been made effective. This is the mandate of Rule 16.1 of the Common Cadre Rules. If the new/revised scale of pay had been granted from 1.1.2006, it is difficult to understand as to how the same scale can be made effective from 24.8.2009 i.e. date of the order of the Registrar and not from 1.1.2006 itself. It is also difficult to understand how the old scales of pay that has been substituted by the revised scales w.e.f. 1.1.2006 could be continued from the said date upto 24.8.2009. If there were financial difficulties or the financial position of the bank was fragile or any other sufficient cause had existed, the Registrar should have made the new scales of pay effective from any other date. In so far as the financial health of the bank is concerned, though the audit report seems to indicate that such health is precarious and the profit for the financial year 2008-09 was on account of waiver of certain loans, it is surprising that the said note of audit had not been brought on the record of the case till today and a copy of the said note has been shown to the Court only at the time of hearing of the case. What are the circumstances in which the audit report had to be prepared is not known except that it is dated 3.9.2011 and a recital of the same appears to indicate that the same has been prepared to explain the reasons for which the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Haryana had mentioned the financial position of the bank to be fragile in the order dated 24.8.2009. The report shown to the Court, therefore, in our considered view ought not to be accepted for the purposes of coming to a decision in the present case. However, even assuming that such reliance can be placed what we find is that the actions of the Registrar in withholding the arrears of the employees of the Bank runs counter to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.9244 of 2003 (Annexure P-6). In the aforesaid paragraph the Hon'ble Apex Court had clearly laid down that if revised scale of pay is to be denied to the employees on account of claimed financial difficulties, there must be other indications of such financial difficulties faced by the employer which would manifest itself into measures of economy adopted by the employer; avoidance of frequent writing off of dues; reduction of posts or repatriating deputationists, as the case may be. In the present case if the financial health of the bank was precarious to the extent that legitimate dues of the employees cannot be settled, the bank was expected to show such difficulties by adoption of other measures of financial stringency which measures are absent in the present case. That apart, from the audit note as shown to the Court, it appears that 40% of the total arrears on account of revised scales of pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006 have been paid to the deputationists. Though the bank would like to explain that the said payment is unavoidable what cannot escape notice is that the fragile financial position of the bank did not come in the way while making the said payment to the deputationists though it has come in the way while settling the legitimate dues of the employees. Having answered the issue arising in the present case in the manner indicated above, we conclude by holding the impugned order dated 24.8.2009 (Annexure P-3) in so far as denial of arrears is concerned to be untenable in law. We, accordingly, interfere with the said part of the order; allow the writ petition as well as this appeal subject to our observations hereinbelow: Before parting with the record we would like to add that if the financial condition of the bank, as on date, is proved and established by credible material to be fragile or precarious, it will be open for the bank to negotiate with its employees for payment of the arrears in part or in instalments, as the case may be. We however make it clear that in the facts and circumstances of the case payment of the arrears in entirety or in part or in instalments will not carry any interest. LPA stands allowed to the extent mentioned above."
(3.) Non-complinace of the aforesaid judgment has been alleged in this petition.;