Prem Chand Jain, C.J. - (1.) Tail judgment of ours would dispose of this ad the connected Letters Patent Appeal No. 912 of 1982, filed by the State of Haryana and another as both these appeals arise oat of that common judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 23 Feb. 1982, by which Civil Writ Petition No. 1502 of 1973, filed by respondent 1 was alloyed with coats.
(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy certain salient features of tie case may be noticed. Om Parkash Bakshi was employed as a drilling superintendent in the work charge establishment by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical, Health Division, in the pay-scale of Rs. 200-10-350 and his total emoluments were Rs. 335 per mensem. In Feb. 1966, the Municipal Committee, Yumananagar, decided to take over the maintenance of water supply of Model Town, Yam manager, from the public health division. The President of the committee wrote a letter, dated 3 Feb. 1966 to the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Mechanical, requesting hi a to spare the services of respondent 1 and informing hi n that he would be allowed the same grade and pay which he was getting in the public health division. The Executive Engineer wrote back that respondent 1 was employed in the work-charge establishment ad his department would have no objection if respondent 1 resigned his post and toot up the job anywhere ne liked. Thereafter, some other correspondence took place between the Executive Engineer and the municipal committee. Ultimately, on 17 Feb. 19 16, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mechanical, wrote to the committee that respondent 1 was being relieved and he had been directed to hand over charge as he was being transferred to the committee, respondent 1 then joined the Municipal Committee, Yamuaanagar, with effect from 1 March 1966; but it appears that it was brought to the notice of respondent 1 that there was technical difficulty appointment in the grade of Rs. 10010-360 and, so, on 9 March 1965, respondent 1 gave an undertaking (copy of which is attached with the written statement as annexure R 5; that he would not draw any salary till the approval of the Govern neat was obtained. It may be observed hat the committee had also passed Resolution No. 17, dated 3 Feb. 1966, approving me action of the President in obtaining the service of respondent 1 in the grade of Rs. 200-10-350 on deputation with effect from 1 March 1966, and further directed that the sanction of the Government at may be obtained to this appointment. Accordingly, me President of me committee wrote a letter to the Sub-Division Officer on 18 March 1966, Informing him that the committee had taken over me maintenance of the water supply from the public health department with effect from 1 Feb. 1965, and the staff working on different tube veils had also been taken over from the said department on their existing pay-scale. The president wrote that the committee had no mechanical hand which could supervise the working of the water supply and on his request the Executive Engineer. Public Health Division, had lent to the committee the services of respondent 1 and so his services had been got transferred with the approval of the committee. The President, therefore, requested that the sane ion of the Government obtained to this transfer of the services with effect from 1 March 1966, on the pay of Rs. 200 per mensem in the grade of Rs 200-10 350 After this letter, some correspondence took place between the committee and the Sub-Divisional O fleer. As the correspondence was going on with the Government, no salary was being paid to respondent 1. with the result that letter, dated 3 May 1966, was addressed by respondent 1 to the President, wherein it was pointed out that there was no necessity to obtain the sanction of the Government to his appointment because bis services bad been transferred to the committee along with the other staff and he requested that at least a part of his salary may be paid to him. Oh this representation, the committee passed a Resolution No. 16, dated 14 May 1966, sanctioning the payment of Rs. 600 as advance against his salary and the committee undertook to reimburse the amount if this salary was not admitted.
(3.) On 27 May 1966, the Resident Senior Auditor, Municipal Committee, Yamuaanagar, wrote to the President that according to the views of the Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, the appointment of respondent 1 as water works superintendent was for all intents and purposes a fresh appointment and so he may be informed of the final decision taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The committee then pissed Resolution No. 27, dated 5 Aug. 1966, that Public service Commission be moved for the appointment of water works superintendent and recommended the name of respondent 1 tor appointment in view of his satisfactory work and the circumstances in which his services bad been taken from the public health department. Some objections were raised regarding the payment of the salary to respondent 1. The Director, Urban Local Bodies, also wrote to the committee to obtain the approval of the Public Service Commission. As an audit objection was raised and the approval of the Public Service Commission had not come, the committee expressed its inability to pay the salary of respondent 1 which he was getting in the public health department, with the result that respondent 1 filed application under S. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19d7, before the Labour Court, Rohtak, praying that salary due to him at the rate of Rs. 330 up to Sept. 1970, be computed.;