Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.@mdashMore than 17 years ago, on March 20, 1974, the Government of Haryana had ordered the grant of additional
dearness allowance to its employees. By the same order, it had also ordered the adjustment of excess amount of ''ad hoc'' relief which had been
granted in the year 1972. This ''adjustment'' has provided ''the cause of action'' for these 268 petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8995, 10075,
10235, 11905, 12037, 12386, to 12390, 12908, 13627, 13875, 14418, 14473, 14955, 14653, 14643, 14936, 15094, 16641, 16793, 16825,
14725, 14935, 14937, 14911, 15012, 15058, 15521, 15323, 15324, 15330, 15703, 16566, 15354, 15355, 15256, 15445, 15557, 15569 to
15572, 15626, 15676, 15704, 15733, 15875, 16434, 15877, 15993, 15551, 16015, 16186, 16315, 16379, 16380, 16415, 16432, 16433,
16435, 16436, 16437, 16453, 16469, 16490, 15992, 16788, 16503, 16555, 16726, 16811, 16826, of 1990, 2310 of 1991, 16907, 16908,
12798, 16837 of 1990, 81, 86, 87, 92, 102, 161, 194, 307, 196, 232 to 235, 366, 389, 407, 418, 423, 460, 461, 469, 484, 523, 535, 567,
642, 658, 659, 660, 663, 670, 705, 708, 729, 774. 796, 797, 798, 799, 801, 825, 879, 949, 950, 975, 981, 1003, 1059. 1060, 1063, 1079,
1344, 1397, 1398. 1402. 1405, 1415, 1419, 1428. 1429, 1430 to 1434, 1440, 1442 to 1444. 1446, 1453, 1458, 1463, 1967, 1970, 1465,
1466, 1467, 1469, 1472, 1468, 1470, 1471, 1473, 1504, 1505, 1508, 1507, 1516, 1517, 1519, 1531, 1540, 1542 to 1546, 1592. 1619.
1667, 1681, 1715, 1688, 1691, 1716, 1754, 1773, 1808, 1816, 1824, 1889 of 1991, 15630 of 1990, 1890. 1907, 1913, 1931, 1948, 1965 to
1967, 1969, 1970, 2087, 2311, 2411, 2827, 2956, 3032, 360, 3014, 3157, 3154, 3363, 3714, 3778, 3838, 3887, 3967, 4023, 4051, 4052,
4054, 4082, 4230,- 4296, 4340, 4465. 4477, 4478, 3837, 3868, 4501, 4682, 4767, 4768 to 4771. 4868, 4966, 5555, 5589, 5759, 6161,
6176, 6177, 6305, 6640, 6742, 6743, 6906. 7166. 7167, 7445, 7968, 7971, 8623 of 1991. 6596, 5320, 9705 of 1991. A large number of
employees of the State of Haryana are before us and they claim that the action is absolutely arbitrary and unfair. On the other hand, the
Respondents contend that the Petitioners raise a stale claim and are highly belated. On merits, it is maintained on their behalf that the action is
absolutely just and fair.
2. Before proceeding to consider the respective contentions, a few facts as stated in C.W.P. No. 16470 of 1990 (Ishwar Singh and Ors. v. State
of Haryana and Ors.) may be noticed.
3. The 160 Petitioners are working on different posts in different offices under the administrative control of the Engineer-in-Chief of the Public
Works Department in the Buildings and Roads Branch. The Government had granted ad hoc relief to its employees,-vide its orders of June 27/29,
1972 and December 19, 1972. The Government,-vide order dated March 20, 1974 decided to grant further relief in the form of additional
Dearness Allowance with effect from 1st May, 1973, 1st September, 1973, 1st October, 1973 and 1st January, 1974. The rates and method of
calculation were specified. It was also ordered that ""while making payments of additional Dearness Allowance a part of the amount of the ad hoc
reliefs as indicated in columns 5 and 7 of Annexure I to this letter shall be adjusted"" (emphasis supplied). Details of the excess payment and the
method of adjustment were clearly laid down. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioners accepted the payment of additional Dearness
Allowance in accordance with this letter and the fact that there have been periodic revisions of pay scales thereafter, the adjustment of a part of the
ad hoc relief has brought this bunch of petitions before us.
4. When this matter came up for hearing before the motion bench the Petitioners were directed to make a comprehensive representation and the
Respondents were directed to decide the representation/s by passing a ''speaking order''. This has been done. The ''speaking order'' has been
produced as Annexure P-7 by the Petitioners with their replication. The grounds for rejection of the representation may be briefly culled out.
Broadly, these are:
(1) There is no legal or vested right to get a particular quantum of dearness allowance.
(2) The ad hoc reliefs were granted in the year 1972 without adopting any formula ''with reference to the cost of living.
(3) Vide letter dated March 20, 1974. the additional Dearness Allowance was granted on every 8 point increase in the Consumer Price Index.
The ad hoc relief given earlier on a slab system without reference to any formula was found to be higher...than what was permissible on the basis of
Consumer Price Index Formula.
(4) On the basis of calculations ""it was found that the Dearness Allowance granted by way of ad hoc relief was in excess to the extent of Rs. 9.40
to Rs. 45.00 in various categories of pay slabs when compared with the admissible Dearness Allowance as per Consumer Price Index.
(5) As a principle, it was not considered desirable to reduce the emoluments or to recover the excess amount drawn by the employees. It was
decided that the additional Dearness Allowance would only accrue after the adjustment of the excess ad hoc relief already granted. Grant of
Dearness Allowance is not guaranteed under a statute but is a concession conferred through an executive order. The ad hoc relief granted...in
excess of what was payable could be adjusted. Pay scales were revised with effect from April 1, 1979 and January 1, 1986 when substantial
increase in emoluments had been given.
5. Even though a detailed replication has been filed and the order rejecting the representations has been produced as an Annexure, the factual
premises have not been assailed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have only challenged the order of March 20, 1974 on the ground that it is
arbitrary. It has also been contended that a large number of similar petitions having already been allowed, we are bound to accept the present
petitions also. On the other hand, Mr. H.L. Sibal, learned Advocate General has besides raising the objection of delay contended that the action
was absolutely just and fair.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings we find that the ''ad hoc'' relief granted by the Government in the year 1972
was truly ''ad hoc"". Subsequent actions and events have clearly revealed that no definite formula or criterion had been prescribed or followed while
granting the ad hoc relief. In such a situation, we find nothing wrong in the action of the Government in deciding to adjust the excess amount which
was being already drawn by the employees towards future instalments of additional Dearness Allowance. It did not violate any Rule or Law. It did
not act unfairly. It did not even withdraw or recover the excess already paid. It did not even stop the payment of the ''ad hoC relief. It only
directed that additional allowance shall be granted after adjusting the excess amount of ad hoc relief already granted. We find nothing to be
arbitrary. We find no illegality in the order.
7. It is also proper to remember that the country-the tax payer-bears the burden of the pay and allowances of the Civil Servants. The financial
constraints that confront the State cannot be easily over-looked. Payments by way of ad hoc relief and additional Dearness Allowance sanctioned
by the State are only in the nature of welfare measures. These must have a relation to the resources actually available. Equally the Civil Servants
must not flourish at the cost of others.
8. On a consideration of the matter we are satisfied that the premises on which the Government had passed the impugned orders are valid. The
consequential adjustments made by the Government cannot be annulled by us in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. Relying on the decision of this Court in Nitya Nand v. State of Haryana CWP No. 5563-A of 1989 decided on April 23, 1990, it has been
contended that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. We have gone through this judgment. We are also informed that on the basis of the
decision in Nitya Nand''s case (supra), a number of other petitions have also been decided. On the other hand, Mr. Sibal appearing for the
Respondents has pointed out that the State Government has filed a petition for special leave in the Nitya Nand''s case and is also filing appeals,
petitions in other cases. In this situation, we have decided not to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Even otherwise, we find that the decision in
Nitya Nand''s case is based on the judgment in (Haryana Government College Lecturers Association v. The State of Haryana CWP No. 966 of
1986 decided on July 18, 1988. This decision was in the case of College Teachers who were not granted any ad hoc relief under the order of the
State Government in the year 1972. Consequently, in their case, the question of any adjustment of an excess payment did not arise. This decision
had no application in the cases of other Government servants. The pay scales of College Lecturers were determined on the recommendations of
the University Grants Commission, while the employees in various departments of the Government were granted relief periodically in the nature of
additional dearness allowance. The cases of College Lecturers are, therefore, entirely different from those of other civil servants and no analogy
could have been drawn therefrom as in the case of Nitya Nand. Furthermore, as the matter is actually stated to be pending before their Lordships
of the Apex Court, no useful purpose would be served by referring the matter to a larger Bench.
10. It is also relevant to mention that the case of College Lecturers'' Association had been decided by G.C. Mittal, J. (as his Lordship then was).
In spite of that decision and in spite of judgment in Nitya Nand''s case having been placed before their Lordships, the Motion Bench consisting of
G.C. Mittal, J. and S.S. Grewal, J. had considered it appropriate on February 5, 1991 to direct the Petitioners to make a representation and the
Respondents to pass a speaking order. Thereafter, a detailed order has come on the record which was not available to the Bench in Nitya Nand''s
case. In view of the detailed position as disclosed in this order, the necessity of referring the matter to a larger Bench is obviated.
11. It is noteworthy that in Nitya Nand''s case even the objection regarding delay had not been raised. In the present case, the learned Advocate-
General has vehemently contended that the claim made by the Petitioners is absolutely stale. The orders of 1974 have been challenged in the year
1990. On a consideration of the matter, we find merit in the objection. The Petitioners did not raise even a whisper against the order of March,
1974 during all these years. In fact, they drew all the benefits under the order which is now sought to be impugned. Not only that the pay scales
have been revised in the years 1979 and 1986, but even otherwise, we have found no justification for the long silence on the part of the Petitioners.
On the ground of delay alone the petitions deserve to be dismissed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contend that it is a recurring cause of
action. We are not inclined to accept this contention. The pay of every employee had been fixed in accordance with the letter of March 20, 1974
and the Annexures thereto. Even a suit would be totally barred by limitation. In such a situation, we are not inclined to invoke our extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this belated claim made by the Petitioners.
12. Accordingly, we find no merit in these petitions which are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their
own costs.