CASE LAW 735

Non-release of increment –Rule 4.7 of P.C.S.R. Vol.I Part I.-interest- Non release of
increments for 5 years without giving any reason- Decree by the First Appellate Court
declaring the respondent entitled to 12% interest P.A on the amount due upheld .State of
Haryana and others Vs. Vidyawant42002(2) RSJ 588
Option - Once through a subsequent order passed by the Government itself or on the
basis of a Court judgment, if the pay scale of a particular individual is revised, the earlier
options which might have been given by a particular individual would lose its significance -
Such a person would be entitled to give a fresh option by which he could get the maximum
advantage. Randhir Kaur and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2003(1) RSJ 178
(DB)
Option –Revision of pay scale retrospectively –change of option-Held thaty once by a
sunsequent order passed by the government itself or on the basis of judgement of a
competent court ,the pay scales of a particular individual is revised, the earlier option which
might have been given by particular indidual would lose its significance- Such an incumbent
would be entitled to given fresh option by which he can get the maximum advantage.
Mangat Ram Nain and others vs. State of Haryana and others,2002(2)RSJ 600(DB)
Change of option-Direction issued to decide the petitioners claim for change of option
and grant of additional increment inaccordance with judgement of this court in
C.W.PNo.15523 of 1990 decided on 16.11.92 etc. Tarlochan Singh vs. stase of Punjab and
others 1999(1) RSJ 797(DB)
Option –Selection grade given from retrospective date w.e.f. 1.4.1981 vide order dated
31.10.95.The earlier option for pay fixation in the revised pay scale was exercised prior to
October,26,1995-Held that the petitioner would be entitled to revised option from the date
w.e.f. which her pay scale should be revised in the revised pay scale. Bimla Devi vs. State
of Haryana and others ,2000(2) RSJ 157(DB)

Chapter 5

Rules 5.1 and 5.5 -House Rent Allowance -A compensatory allowance-It is related to
the rate of expenditure for a house -House Rent Allowance not admissible-to all the members
of a family but only to an employee who is actually paying it— Held claim made by the
petitioners that they are entitled to the payment of House Rent Allowance in Spite of the
fact that their respective spouses are getting the allowance not Sustainable. Chander
Prabha and others vs. State of Punjab 'and others 1997 (3) RSJ 739
House Rent Allowance - Punjab State Instructions dated 30.8.1988 - Border Area house
Rent Allowance - Petitioners posted within 16 kms. border belt getting Border Area House
Rent Allowance - Rent free accommodation in lieu of house rent allowance to the employees
posted in the border area stands on the identical footing - Petitioners held entitled to
benefit of instructions dated 30.8.1988 and to the protection granted by virtue of the said
instructions. Dewan Chand vs. State of Punjab, 2003(2) RSJ 696 (DB)
House Rent Allowance - Recovery of - Respondents cannot recover the amount of
excess house rent allowance paid to the petitioners as such amount was paid by the
respondents without any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners. Dewan
Chand vs. State of Punjab, 2003(2) RSJ 696 (DB)
Latches - House Rent Allowance - Claim for 25% instead of 15% as being paid - Board
of Directors passed resolution to bring down House Rent allowance from 25% to 15% at par
with government department in 1982 - Resolution not challenged - Cause of action, if any,
arose to the petitioner during the tenure of his appointment with Corporation - At the best
736 The Punjab Civil Services Rules
petitioner's case can be considered for payment of HRA, if any, for the period commencing
2.2.1981 to November 1982 when the Board had taken the decision. Surinder Kumar Verma
vs. State of Punjab and another, 2003(2) RSJ 443
House Rent Allowance - Petitioners' grievance that on account of fixation of their pay in
the revised scales, the State Government is seeking to reduce the house rent allowance
payable to them - Directions issued that the petitioners shall be given the benefit of protection
of house rent allowance in terms of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Mohinder
Singh's case (1995) and by the Division Bench in Hem Raj Gupta's case (1999). Sadhu Singh
and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003(1) RSJ 71
House Rent Allowance - Petitioners' grievance that on account of fixation of their pay in
the revised pay scale, the State Government seeking to reduce the house gent allowance
payable to them - Directions issued that the petitioners to be given the benefits of protection
of house rent allowance in terms of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in `Mohinder
Singh's case' and by the Division Bench in 'Hem Raj Gupta's case'. Suraj Parkash Dogra,
Lecturer and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003(1) RSJ 88
Rule 5.23 -Penal rent Unauthorised occupation -Without amending, the statutory rules,
the instructions which run contrary to the rules, cannot be enforced or made effective -The
instructions which laid down that the market rent would be chargeable in case of un
authorised occOpation of the Government .- accommodation clearly run contrary to the
statutory rule on the subject i.e. Rule 5.23, Dilbag Singh vs The State of Haryana, 1994(3)
RSJ 181.

Punjab Govt. House(General Pool) Allotment Rules,1983

Rule 10- Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.11,Part 1 ,Rule 9.17 — Penal Rent — Principle of
natural justice Petitioner held the Govt. accommodation for about 6 months after the
permissible period — Gratuity of the petitioner released after making deduction of an amount
of Rs.66834/- as rent chargeable —Assessment of the House rent made ex-parte with no
notice to the petitioner.The order quashed with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh
order of assessment of the rent after notice to the petitioner. Dr. Amrit Singh vs. State of
Punjab ,1999(1)RSJ 555
House Rent Allowance.-Higher rate in specified border area made permissible by Punjab
Govt. instructions as incentive w.e.f. 31.1.1078 to its employee within area of 10 K.M. of
international border with Pakistan- Instructions issued on recommendation of third pay
commission on 30.8.88 reclassifying cities/towns and protection provided where rates were
lowered by said instructions till adjustment in revised rates but protection not given to the
petitioners and recovery ordered- Held that petitioners entitled to said protection and the
initiation of action for recoveries wrongly made. Pal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab
and others,2001 (1) RSJ 231.

Chapter 7

Rule 7(1) -Conviction Dismissal- Not necessary that the offence must involve moral
turpitude. Rajinder Singh vs. Punjab State and another; (1950-1988) (5) RSJ 499.
Rule 7.2(1) -Subsistence allowance -Suspension beyond period of six months. Employee
entitled to increase in subsistence allowed. by 50%. Gajraj Singh vs. State of Haryana and
 CASE LAW 737
others, (1950-1988) I RSJ 588 (DB)
Rule 7.3 -Suspension pending enquiry -Before passing an order under Rule 7.3. authority
concerned has to from an opinion as to whether Government servant has been fully
exonerated and, also whether in the case of suspension, the order of suspension was
wholly unjustified. Shri B. D. Gupta vs. State of Haryana, (1950-1988) (5) RSJ 129: AIR
1972 (SC) 2472. ;1972 Lab IC 1613;1972 SLR 845
Rule 7.3 -A specific order regarding pay and allowances during the period of suspension-
has to be passed and a specific order regarding reinstatement has to be passed -Order of
Premature retirement passed set aside. State of Haryana and another vs. Moti Lal Ban erjee
and others, 1989 (1)RSJ594: 1989(2) SLR 45
Rule 7(3)(a)(5) -Applicability of-Whether it empowers State Government to recover
such amounts which were earned by an employee during period of his dismissal -Executing
Court to determine afresh. as to whether rule is applicable or not -An issue can be framed by
Executing Court on this point. The State of Punjab vs. Ram Sarup Bhalla, 1990(J) RSJ
668.
Rule 73 - Disciplinary proceedings - Double Jeopardy - Plaintiff-appellant was suspended
- Later on reinstated - Order was passed directing that the period of suspension will remain as
such and will not be considered for leave, increments andlor pension - Yet another order was
passed vide which one increment of the plaintiff-appellant was stopped - Authorities not
passing any order with regard to the wages which are required to be paid to a delinquent
official upon reinstatement as envisaged under Rule 7.3 - Held that the delinquent had been
subjected to double penalty for one and the same alleged offence - Order declining period of
suspension to be counted for the purpose of leave, increment or pension liable to be set aside
- However, infliction of penalty by way of stoppage of one increment upheld as the Court
cannot sit as a Court of appeal so far as quantum of punishment is concerned. Ramesh
Kumar vs. Punjab ..itate, 2003(1) RSJ 445
Rule 7.3 .F4titioner suspended -Mentioned in the suspension order that petitioner
would be paid subsistence allowance as admissible under the rules. Order of suspension
revoked without serving any charge sheet without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings
to be taken. Contention that once an order of reinstatement had been passed, though even
pending departmental enquiry an order under rule 7.3 had to be passed by the competent
authority as to how the period of suspension was to be treated -Contention upheld. B.D.
Singla vs. Chief Engineer 1991(1) RSJ 570
Rule 7.3 -Compulsory retirement .Whether a government servant who is under
suspension can be retired compulsorily or not -Held 'No'. State of Haryana and another
vs. Moti La! Banerjee and others, 1990(1) RSJ 216
Rule 7.3(A)(5) -Reinstatement. Amount earned by petitioner where he was gainfully
employed during the period he remained out of service —Was liable to be deducted from
amount claimed by him. Ram Sarup Bhallavs. The State of Punjab, 1991(1) RSJ 63.
Rule 7.3 (as applicable to Haryana) -Suspension -Regularisation of period FIR lodged
against petitioner and placed under suspension -Acquitted by. Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class after suffering prosecution for almost 12 years in which no evidence against the
petitioner was given -Held that the petitioner shall be paid all his arrears of pay including all
allowances forthwith. Sunder Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2001(2) RSJ 700
(DB)
Rules 7.3 and 7.5 (As applicable to Haryana State) -Dismissal -Reinstatement - Back
wages -Acquittal of the petitioner of the criminal case -Reinstatement of the petitioner
ordered by the competent authority but the intervening period not treated as duty and
738 The Punjab Civil Services Rules
backwages accordingly denied -Held that in terms of Rule 7.5 of the Rules on petitioners
being acquitted ,he would be entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of
suspension and dismissal. Hukam Singh vs. The State of Haryana and another, 2001(1)
RSJ 201 (DB).
Rule 7.3(2) -Suspension -Denial of salary -Order denying petitioner—full salary for the
period of suspension has been passed without giving any opportunity to show cause,
which is violative of principles of natural justice -Order cannot be sustained -Left open to
the respondents to pass a fresh order regarding payment of salary for the period of
suspension after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, within four months of the
receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. N.P. Jain vs. State of Haryana and
others, 1996(1) RSJ 510(DB) ;1996(2) SLR 394
Rule 7.5 -Suspension -Basis of was detention -Suspension on account of detention
under Rule 7.5 aforesaid has to be during the period of detention. .Hem Chander vs. State
of Haryana and others, 1994(4) RSJ 699.
Rule 7.5 -Resignation -Withdrawal of -Resignation submitted in order to contest
Assembly Election -Impossible to hold that contesting the State Assembly elections would
amount to a compelling reason for submitting the resignation within the meaning of the
above rule -Would be ridiculous that a Government servant submits resignation, contests
the State Assembly elections and on losing the same reports back and insists that he shall
be taken back into service with continuity as referred to in rules 8.116 and 8.117 -Leave
encashment —Half pay leave due -Can the petitioner claim encashment of half pay leave
which may be due to her at the time of her retirement -Only the full pay earned leave could
be encashed. Chander Kanta vs. State of Punjab, 1995(2) RSJ 157.
Rule 7.5 -Withdrawal of resignation -Under Rule 7.5 of the rules a person who has
resigned to contest an election and his resignation having been accepted cannot be permitted
at all to withdraw the resignation. kartar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others 1998(2)
RSJ 596 (FB.)
Rule 7.3 - Resignation - Departmental proceedings against the petitioner coming to an
end without casting any stigma on him - Neither found guilty nor exonerated of the article
of charges - No presumption can be drawn against him in this regard - Resignation of
petitioner was accepted and period of suspension was treated to be on duty, but without
payment of salary - Contention of the respondents that the order was under the purview
and scope of Rule 7.3(2) of the Rules repelled - Held that when an employee resigns and his
resignation is accepted by the competent authority, in that event the provisions of Rule 7.3
would not come into play - The impugned order is liable to be set aside - Respondents to
pay full salary to the petitioner for the period in question. Dr. S.S. Beniwal vs. Haryana
State and others, 2002(3) RSJ (DB) 196
Resignation - Charge-sheets - Quashing of- Sought by petitioner - Ground that the same
have been issued without jurisdiction and that the petitioner had already left the service of
the respondent-bank on account of his resignation submitted on 23.5.1997 and the same
having deemed to have been accepted in view of the provisions of Regulation 20(2) and 20(3)
of the Regulations - Held that merely because the petitioner cannot get voluntary retirement
on account of the fact that he did not have the requisite qualifying service in terms of
Regulations 21 and 29 of the Regulations, it cannot be said that the same may be treated as an
intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign within the meaning of Regulation 20(2)
- Petitioner trying to avoid disciplinary action which was being contemplated at that stage -
Respondent-bank held entitled to conduct the enquiry in accordance with Regulations to
substantiate the allegations against the petitioner - Petitioner to participate in the enquiry and
 CASE LAW 739
prove his innocence - Petition dismissed. T.S. Gandhok vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and
others, 2003(1) RSJ 565 (DB)
Resignation - Meaning and case law discussed. Prabha Atri vs. State of U.P. and others,
2003(1) RSJ 747 (SC)
Resignation - Nature and Validity - To constitute a 'resignation', it must be unconditional
and with an intention to operate as such. Prabha Atri vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003(1)
RSJ 747 (SC)
Resignation - Retiral benefits - Proportionate pension - Held that Rule 4.I9(a) of Punjab
Civil Services Rules Vol.II Part II (as applicable to State of Haryana) would apply only in cases
where a resignation is submitted by a government servant to avoid an order of dismissal or
removal from service either under Proviso C to Article 311(2) for anti-national activities as
sabotage, espionage etc. or for misconduct - This provision cannot possibly be made applicable
to a voluntary resignation from service for domestic reasons - Even in case of resignation, the
case would clearly fall under Rule 6.16(2) of the Rules - Since the respondent resigned from
service due to domestic reasons having put in more than 10 years of service, the respondent
was clearly entitled to proportionate pension as provided under Rule 6.16(2) - Findings of
both the Courts below upheld - Appeal dismissed. Haryana State through Collector vs.
Madan Pal Ahlawat, 2003(1) RSJ 490
Resignation - Withdrawal of - Appellant, working as an Anesthetist, placed under
suspension for alleged negligence - Appellant's reply to memo that "...if the forgoing is not
acceptable to you then I have no option left but to render my resignation with immediate
effect." - Question whether the letter could be construed to mean or amounted a letter of
resignation or merely an expression of her intention to resign, if here claims in respect of the
alleged lapse are not viewed favourably - Held that the letter cannot be construed to convey
any spontaneous intention to give up or relinquish her office accompanied by any act of
relinquishment - To constitute a 'resignation', it must be unconditional and with an intention
to operate as such. Prabha Atri vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003(1) RSJ 747 (SC)
Resignation - Withdrawal of- Respondent contested election and lost - Sought permission
to withdraw the resignation - No decision was taken - Respondent's plea of discrimination
that in similar cases, the State Government had allowed other unsuccessful candidates to
withdraw the resignation from service and allowed them to rejoin duty accepted by learned
Singh Judge and quashed the impugned order - - Held that one wrong order passed or action
taken by the State cannot be made basis for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to
public authority to pass wrong orders in other cases - Order of the Single Judge set aside -
Since, after the decision of the Single Bench, the respondent was in service for last nine years,
appellants directed that the respondent should be allowed to continue in service subject to
the condition that be shall get service benefits strictly in terms of instructions issued by the
State Government vide letter dated 21.10.1980. State of Harpana and others vs. Suresh Kumar,
2003 (1) RSJ 41 (DB)
Rule 7.5 -Suspension on account of detention -Specifically stated that the suspension
of the petitioner was on account Of his detention in police custody and not on account of
departmental enquiry -As per Rule 7.5 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol-I, Part -I, period
of suspension had to be up to the period of detention -Suspension on account of detention
under Rule.7.5 aforesaid has to be during the period of detention -Placing the petitioner
under suspension subsequently on April 27,1994 by issuing order Annexure P 18 cannot
be sustained in law and is, therefore, quashed. Hem Chander vs. State of Haryana and
others, 1995(1) RSJ 266
Retirement —Half pay leave -Earned leave -There is marked distinction between earned
740 The Punjab Civil Services Rules
leave and half pay leave -Former is correlated to the periods spent on duty while the latter
becomes available to a Government employee in respect of completed years of service -A
permanent Government employee is entitled to leave encashment only in respect of unutilised
earned leave to the extent mentioned in that notification. Surkit Kumar Sharma vs. State of
Punjab, through Secretary Education Punjab at Chandigarh and Anr., 1992(3) RSJ.175
(FB)
Rule 7.5 -Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 4(1)(b) -
Suspension -Retrospectively -Registration of criminal case under Prevention of Corruption
Act -Arrested on 12.12.97 and released on bail on 18.12.1997 -Order of suspension issued
on 6.1.1998 w.e.f. 12.12.1997 -Held that for the period during which the petitioner was
detained he will be deemed to be under-suspension by the operation of the provisions of
the rules -The order of suspension shall operate prospectively. Harinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab, 1999(2) RSJ 739 (DB) : 2000(2) SLR 153
Rule 7.5(4) - Resignation - Withdrawal of- Employee filing application for withdrawal of
resignation beyond 60 days of the date on which she was relieved of her duties - Prayer
declined by authorities on the ground of non-availability of the comparable post - Employee
failed to produce any evidence to show that the request for withdrawal of the resignation
was made as a result of material change in the circumstances - Employee held not entitled
to withdraw her resignation. Avinash Kumari vs. Punjab State, 2003(2) RSJ 517
Subsistence Allowance /Grant — Departmental Enquiry- Petitioner placed under
suspension on 3-7-97-Seeks enhancement of subsistence allowance to 75% after six months-
Undertaking given that enquiry shall be completed within 3 months .Rajinder Singh vs.
The State of Haryana and others 1998(4) RSJ 190(DB)
Subsistence Allowance-Right to life-The provision for payment of subsistence allowance
made in the Service Rules only ensures non-violation of the right to life of the employee
.Capt. M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another, 1999(2)RSJ 318(SC)
Subsistence Allowance— Is paid by the Government so that Government Servant against
whom order of suspension is passed could maintain himself and his dependents. Amount
should be reviewed from time to time 1989(1)RSJ 387(SC)
Subsistence Allowance-Reduced by order-Government failing to review the order for 5
years-Application to Tribunal —Cause of action-Arises every month in each case.-Tribunal
can direct the Government to revise the order even in respect of any period within three
years from the date it started exercising its power-P.L Shah vs. Union of India and another
1989(1) RSJ 387(SC)
Subsistence Allowance- Suspension beyond period of six months- Employee entitled
to increase in subsistence allowance by 50% .Gajraj Singh vs. State of Haryana and
others (1950-88)(1)RSJ588.
Subsistence Allowance- Entitlement of — Where suspension is imposed by way of
pukshment, the person under suspension is not entitled to any subsistence allowance.
Umesh Chandra Misra vs. Union of India ,1993(4)RSJ 229.
Subsistence Allowance- to be paid according to Rules-Neither Trial Court nor Appellate
Court could say that subsistence allowance has to be paid without complying with rules..
The Haryana Diary Development Co-op. Federation Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar Somgja;
,1994(I) RSJ 604
Subsistence Allowance-The payment of dearness allowance frozen- Held that an officer
under suspension is entitled to allowance including dearness allowance prevailing at the
rate on the date of payment.. Makhan La! Garg vs. Punjab National Bank and another.
1998(1)RSJ 298 (DB)