9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d which became applicable upon completion of five years of regular service. He became entitled thereto. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500. On 9.4.1996 he was drawing Rs. 4500/- and Rs. 100/- for personal pay. 3. Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 (for short "the Revised Rules") came into force on 7.1.1998 in terms whereof the pay scales were revised. In terms of the said Rules, the pay scales of the posts of Deputy Director and Joint Director/ Project Director were said to have been revised from Rs. 3000-4500 and Rs. 3000-5000 to Rs. 10000-13900 and Rs. 10000-15200 respectively. Another rules known as Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for short "the ACP Rules") came into force with effect from 7.1.1998 in terms whereof the pay scales of Rs. 3000-4500 and Rs. 4100-5300 were revised respectively to Rs. 10000-13900 and Rs. 12000- 375-16500 with effect from 1.1.1996. In terms of ACP Rules, the pay of Respondent was fixed at Rs. 12000-16500. By a letter dated 15.4.1998, Respondent asked for grant of a certificate of performance of higher responsibility so as to enable him to claim the benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordance with Rule 4.4 (c)(i) of CSR Vol. I and to grant all other consequential benefits. 5. By an order dated 4.12.2000, the said writ petition was allowed directing: Accordingly we accept this writ petition and quash the impugned order. It is directed that the petitioner would be promoted in the present corresponding scale of Rs. 4100-5300 and on promotion will be given one increment. The arrears should be paid within four months from today. We deem it necessary to observe that the State should take necessary steps and remove the said anomaly that might arise in case of many other officers. A Special Leave Petition filed by Appellants there against was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 10.8.2001. In the meanwhile Respondent filed a Contempt Petition claiming a higher scale of pay corresponding to Rs. 14300-18300 wherein Appellants filed their reply stating that the order of the High Court had been complied with. It is not in dispute that the question as regards purported anomaly in the applicability of the Revised Rules and the ACP Rules had not been determined by the court. 6. The said contention indisputably was raised by Appellants in the special leave petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... state is that corresponding scale should be Rs. 12000-16500/-, while according to the petitioner corresponding scale should be Rs. 13500-17250/-. Since Writ Petition has been disposed of and this issue was not adjudicated upon, strictly speaking the controversy raised cannot be the subject matter of the Review Petition. However, this issue will be decided on the next date of hearing. 9. We may at this juncture also take note of a letter issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Finance Department which is in the following terms: I am directed to invite your attention on the subject noted above and to say that it has come to the notice of the Finance Department that the various departments are not allowing replacement pay scales of Selection Grade (Pre-revised) as prescribed under 1st Schedule Part - II of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 issued vide Finance Department notification dated 7.1.1998. This matter has been examined by Government in detail and have decided that wherever Selection Grades were existing in the pre-revised scales as a definite percentage of the posts and after stipulated years of service, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment was delivered consistently with the provisions of law and therefore a course or procedure in departure from or not in conformity with statutory provisions cannot be said to have been intended or laid down by the Court unless it has been so stated specifically. 13. We, as at present advised, do not intend to go into the question as to whether the Revised Pay Rules or the ACP Rules will apply in the case of Respondent. The dispute between the parties has to be decided in accordance with law. What, however, cannot be denied or disputed that a dispute between the parties once adjudicated must reach its logical conclusion. If a specific question which was not raised and which had not been decided by the High Court the same would not debar a party to agitate the same at an appropriate stage, subject, of course, to the applicability of principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. It is also trite that if a subsequent cause of action had arisen in the matter of implementation of a judgment a fresh writ petition may be filed, as a fresh cause of action has arisen. 14. In J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. AIR1997SC113 , this Court held: ... The question is whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 446(SC) ] 16. If the ACP Rules were applicable in the case of Respondent, it was the duty of Appellants to bring it to the notice of the High Court and ask for adjudication on the said question. But the effective order passed as against it could not have been sought to be nullified by raising a question which had not been raised in the writ petition. There might not have been an adjudication on a question which was relevant for determination of the issue directly or indirectly but in a case of this nature such a contention could not have been entertained in a review proceeding which would have the effect of taking away the benefit granted by a court upon adjudication. It may not also be open to a party to the lis to ask for a clarification contrary to or inconsistent with its stand taken by it in the writ proceedings. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors. AIR2005SC592 wherein this Court opined: It is also not correct to contend that the Court while exercising its review jurisdiction in any situation whatsoever cannot take into consideration a subsequent event. In a case of this n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
