Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
241
RSA-2754-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.12.2022
Suresh Kumar .....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate and
Mr. Munish Kumar Kansal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana.
****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
Plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal impugning the
concurrent findings recorded against him by learned Trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 13.11.2017 and affirmed by the Lower
Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.10.2022.
Parties to the lis, hereinafter shall be referred to by their
original positions in the suit.
The pleaded case of the plaintiff may be noticed as thus:
the plaintiff joined on the post of plumber helper in the office of
defendant No.3 on 02.02.1985 and was subsequently promoted as
electrician with effect from 01.04.2003. One, Hawa Singh working as
electrician helper, who was junior to the plaintiff, was drawing more
salary than him. The plaintiff while filing the suit in question sought
stepping up of his pay equivalent to his junior along with arrears of
salary. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by both the Courts below
by recording the concurrent findings wherein it was held that the
plaintiff could not claim parity with the employee junior to him namely
Hawa Singh, who was receiving higher salary pursuant to order of the
1 of 3
RSA-2754-2022 (O&M) -2-
High Court passed in CWP No.19980 of 2008, whereas no such benefit
had been extended to the plaintiff.
Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, at the outset,
submits that the following questions of law are involved in the present
appeal:-
i) whether the subsequent withdrawal of instructions
by the State Government giving technical pay scale
curtails the right of the plaintiff to get pay at par
with his juniors?
ii) whether the plaintiff has a right to seek parity of pay
with his juniors, who are drawing salary higher than
him, by virtue of directions of the Court?
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the above
questions of law already stand settled by this Court in judgment dated
20.04.2022 passed in RSA No.1457 of 2021, whereby it has been held
that a senior employee would be entitled to stepping up of his pay while
in service, if an employee junior to him was drawing higher salary,
even if, such raise in salary had been given to the junior employee by
virtue of a Court order. He further submits that the aforesaid judgment
rendered by this Court has attained finality as SLP No.25095 of 2022
preferred by the State of Haryana against the said judgment has been
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.09.2022.
Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer
made by the counsel opposite submits that no doubt Hawa Singh, who
was junior to the plaintiff, was drawing higher salary, however, it was
by virtue of a Court order. He has, however, not disputed the
2 of 3
RSA-2754-2022 (O&M) -3-
submissions made by the counsel opposite that the questions of law
involved in the instant appeal are identical to the ones involved in RSA
No.1457 of 2021. Learned State counsel has also not disputed that SLP
No.25095 of 2022 preferred by the State against the judgment dated
20.04.2022 rendered in RSA No.1457 of 2021 stands dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.09.2022.
I have heard learned counsel and perused the relevant
material on record.
The questions of law involved in the instant appeal have
already been settled by this Court in RSA No.1457 of 2021 vide
judgment dated 20.04.2022 and has since attained finality. The case of
the plaintiff being squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this
Court in RSA No.1457 of 2021 has not been controverted by the
learned counsel for the State and also that SLP No.25095 of 2022
preferred by the State against the order dated 20.04.2022 passed in RSA
No.1457 of 2021 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide order dated 09.09.2022.
As a sequel to the above, the present appeal stands allowed
and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set
aside. Defendant department is directed to treat the plaintiff at par with
his juniors and grant him the pay scale equivalent to them.
Since main appeal stand decided, all pending applications
also stand disposed of.
21.12.2022 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
