Recently, in a compelling pronouncement that reinforces constitutional equality in service jurisprudence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that once a general category employee attains the same post as a junior promoted under the reservation policy, the “catch-up rule” must be applied to restore the senior’s rightful position. Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that permitting a reserved category employee to retain continuous promotional advantage would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioner, a general category employee, was appointed as Canal Patwari in 1974 and rose to the post of Zilledar in 2010. His junior, a Scheduled Caste employee who joined the same year, was promoted earlier under the reservation policy and attained the post of Zilledar in 1992. After both retired as Zilledars in 2012, Chander sought parity of pay, invoking the catch-up rule recognised in Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab and subsequent judgments of the High Court.
Despite the petitioner’s reliance on the government's previous instructions, issued in light of earlier judicial directions, the Haryana Government rejected his claim in 2020, asserting that no seniority list of Zilledars existed and that he had not “regained seniority” over his junior.
The Court observed, “To allow the reserved category junior to retain a continuous promotional advantage without reassessing seniority at the common post would amount to ignoring the equality clauses enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The principle of equality demands that, once parity in position is achieved, the originally senior general category employee should not be prejudiced in matters of pay, status, or further advancement.”
The Court found the reasoning “wholly untenable” and reiterated that the equality mandate cannot be curtailed by administrative or procedural technicalities. The judge drew extensively from Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab and subsequent High Court precedents, including Charan Dass v. State of Haryana and Anant Ram Sharma v. State of Haryana, to hold that reservation-based accelerated promotions do not carry consequential seniority.
Justice Moudgil expounded on the constitutional vision behind Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, observing that while the State must promote inclusion, it cannot do so at the cost of fairness and morale. “The Constitution mandates a delicate balance, where social justice is pursued, but not at the cost of merit or institutional integrity,” he remarked, adding that the exclusion of senior general category employees merely due to the accumulated benefit of earlier reserved promotions “undermines the equality mandate.”
The Court described his claim as “not merely about monetary parity, it is, in essence, a plea for recognition, for dignity, for fairness in the twilight of a long and honorable career in public service.” Justice Moudgil stressed that “justice must not only be done, it must reach the doorstep of the petitioner with the quiet assurance that the law has not forgotten him.”
Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the government’s 2020 order and directed the respondents to “step up the pay of the petitioner at par with his junior Raghubir Singh from the date he caught up with him on the post of Zilledar, with all consequential benefits, including arrears with interest @6%, to be released within three months.”
Case Title: Kailash Chander Vs. State Of Haryana And Ors.
Case No: CWP-26007-2021(O&M)
Coram: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Kuldeep Sheoran,
Advocate for Respondent: DAG R.D. Sharma
Picture Source :
