Holding

The respondents are entitled to dearness allowance and related allowances as on the date of absorption, and the State Government is entitled to reimbursement from the Central Government.

Summary

The respondents were Physical Training Instructors employed by the Central Government who were later absorbed into the Haryana State Service as P.E.T.s/D.P.Es effective July 1, 1976. Their appointment order stipulated that from the date of absorption they would receive all allowances admissible to other state employees, and that the dearness allowances they were receiving under the Central Government would be protected, with the Central Government reimbursing the State for related expenditures. The respondents claimed payment of dearness allowance and related allowances as on the date of absorption, a claim that the High Court allowed. The State appealed, contending that the claim should not be granted. The Supreme Court held that the respondents are entitled to the dearness allowance and related allowances as on the date of absorption (October 1976) and that the State is entitled to reimbursement from the Central Government. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the respondents' claim upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents are entitled to dearness allowance and related allowances as on the date of their absorption into the State service
Whether the State Government is liable to be reimbursed by the Central Government for the expenditure incurred on such allowances

Subjects

service lawphysical training instructorsabsorptiondearness allowancecentral governmentstate governmentreimbursementappointment

Judgment

A STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
v.
• 1 -
D.L. UPPAL AND ORS.

AUGUST 24, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Service Law:

Physical Trai1ung lnstmctors-Appointment by Central Govern-
ment-Subsequent appointment and absorption in State Govemment-Direc-
c tions regarding payment of DA. etc. as on the date of absorption-Issued.

The respondents working as Physical Training Instructors with the
Central Government were subsequently appointed and absorbed in the
service of State of Haryana as P.E.Ts. or D.P.Es. with effect from July 1,
D 1976. The terms of appointment provided that (i) froni the date of absorp-
tion in State service they will be entitled to all allowances as admissible to
~
other State Government employees; (ii) pay and allowances viz. Dearness
allowance, Dearness Relief, Interim Relief and Additional Dearness Al-
Iowances received under the State will be protected; and (iii) the expendi-
tore incurred in that behalfwill be reimbursed by Central Government till
E absorption by State Government. The respondents laid claim for payment
of D.A. etc. as on the date of absorption, and it was allowed by the High
Court. Hence this appeal by the State Government.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court
F
HELD: The claim laid by respondents in respect of dearness
Allowance etc. would be given to them as on the date of their absorption
i.e. October, 1976. The State Government in turn would be entitled to
reimbursement from the Central Government. (44-A-B]

G
1995.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7977 of

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.92 of the Punjab & Haryana ...
-
High Court in C.W.P. No. 2558 of 1991.

H Ms. Suruchi Agrawal for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellants.
42
STATE v. D.L. UPPAL 43
.. '> • The following Order of the Court was delivered : A
Leave granted.

We have heard the counsel on both sides. This appeal by special
leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana dated August 4, 1994 made in C.W.P. No. 2558 of B
1991. It is not in dispute that the respondents were appointed as Physical
Training Instructor by the Central Government. At the Instance of the
f Union of India, the respondents came to be appointed on October 14, 1976
by the State Government of Haryana in N.D.S.I. Scheme. The order of
appointment, which is Annexure R-V to the petition is the proceedings
dated October 15, 1976 of the Director of Public Instruction (Education
c
Department), Haryana. It would show that consequent upon the decision
of the Government of Haryana to absorb the N.D.S. Instructors in the State
Service with effect from 1.7.1976, they were appointed as PTI (NFC)
D.P.E. on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 125-5-150-250 and Rs.
220-6-300/10-400 respectively. Condition No. 9 specified that "From the D
date of absorption in the State Service he/she will be entitled to all
allowances as admissible to other State Government employees of this
Cadre." Condition No. 10 stated: "The pay & allowance he/she gets under
the Central Government at the time of absorption in the State Service will
be protected, for this purpose the allowances to be protected are Dearness E
Allowance, Dearness Pay, Interim Relief and Additional Dearness Al-
lowances." Para 15 said : "The total expenditure on pay, allowances, etc. of
the N.D.S. Instructors will continue to be reimbursed by the Government
of India to the State Government till they remain in the cadre of P.E.T. in
which they are absorbed by the State Government."
F
Thus, it would be clear that the respondents who were hitherto
working with the Central Government are absorbed in the service of the
State of Haryana in the Education Department as P.E.Ts., or D.P.Es. with
effect from July 1, 1976, will be entitled to the pay on par with the State
Government employees and allowances, namely, the Dearness Allowances,
G
..... Interim f-..:;;,J etc. will be ~s admissible to the Central Government
employees and as on the date of absorption. The expenditure incurred by
the State Government in that behalf will be reimbursed by the Central
""'" Government till they remain in the cadre of the P.E.T. only.

In that view of the matter, the claims, whatever they may be, laid by H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the respondents in respect of dearness allowance etc. as enumerated in •-<
clause 10 of the Order of appointment, would be given to the respondents
as admissible as on the date of their absorption, i.e., October 1976. The
State Government in turn would be entitled to reimbursement from the
Central Government. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

B Respondent Nos. 28, 84 and 90 are reported to be dead. So, the
appeal as against them stands abated. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.

-