06 February 2009
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs SURINDER PAL SINGH

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,P. SATHASIVAM, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-000797-000797 / 2009
Diary number: 29157 / 2006
Advocates: AJAY PAL Vs JAGJIT SINGH CHHABRA


1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.797 OF 2009 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.21016 OF 2006)

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.     Appellant(s)

                     VERSUS

SURINDER PAL SINGH & ANR.                  Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The respondents,  by a judgment dated 5th April,  1999 of  the

Division Bench of  the Punjab & Haryana High Court  at  Chandigarh,  were

directed to be appointed in service and the Public Service Commission was

to take steps within 30 days for doing so.  Thereafter steps were taken by

the State and as there was some delay, the respondents again went to the

Court for implementation of the order and the appointments were made in

September,  2000.   As  they  had  to  be  given  appointments  from  1998

onwards the notional scale    pay was fixed and they were also given the

notional increments for belated appointments.  The respondents thereafter

filed a writ petition claiming that they should be given arrears of salary from

the period 1998.  The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has directed

that as these respondents ought to have been appointed from 1998, the

State should pay their salary from 1998 onwards.

3. Heard both sides.

2

2

3

3

4. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State  contends  that  the

respondents were appointed only from the year 2000 and so the State may

not be directed to pay the salary for  the period for which they were not

working and, in our opinion, there is no justifiable reason to give salary to

these  respondents  for  the  period  for  which  they  had  not  worked.   The

respondents, in any way, are entitled to get their notional increments as they

ought to have been appointed from the year 1998 onwards.  They were not

entitled to salary for the period for which they were not working.  Therefore,

we set aside the order of the High Court to that extent.   

5. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.  No costs.

...............CJI. (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

.................J.     (P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 6, 2009.