The Punjab and Haryana excessive court docket has taken a grim view of the Haryana authorities dillydallying over the phrases and situations for appointing president justice SD Anand (retd) as Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) appellate authority.

The former decide was appointed president of the HSPCB in April 2017. The bench of justice Arun Monga suggested the state authorities that they might do higher to inform the phrases and situations of any judicial and/or statutory tribunal, chairman/president, on the time of appointment itself and never depart it open to the realm of hypothesis at later stage. “..Seen from any angle, the legal infirmity in denying the petitioner of his legitimate expectation has though been sought to be justified but none of the justifications either pleaded or argued, are tenable in law,” the bench mentioned.

Justice Anand appointment was a statutory one underneath Section 28 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974. The appointment was notified in April 2017, nevertheless it was said that phrases and situation of president and two members might be issued later.

In May 2017, he despatched a letter to the federal government to inform phrases and situation as nothing moved, he despatched one other letter in December 2018. In his letters he identified that completely different Haryana dispensations are headed by former excessive court docket judges and they’re getting the pay and perks of sitting excessive court docket judges, and the identical situations be thought of by the federal government. However, as authorities didn’t notify, he approached excessive court docket in January 2019 along with his grievance.

“Being an independent judicial authority, conscious to maintain the independence of the justice delivery system and keeping in view the sacrosanct placement of judiciary in the scheme of things as envisaged by the Constitution of India, the petitioner was not expected to have written any reminders and letters seeking finalization of his terms and conditions and/or remittance of his salary/monthly emoluments. And yet, he was compelled to send letter,” the court docket noticed.

The authorities initially responded by stating that the phrases and situations as have been finalised. Hence, plea be disposed of. Subsequently, the state argued that he’s not entitled to hunt any parity with the president and chairperson of the statutory tribunals.

The court docket noticed that petitioner must be handled on parity with different such tribunals and fee chairpersons when the appointment was of a statutory tribunal. The court docket partly permitting the plea directed that the petitioner be handled at par with and paid his dues by way of appointment letters issued to the chairman of the Haryana tax tribunal and chairman of Haryana Backward Classes Commission.