Chur Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1410 P&H

CWP-1286-2023                                         -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

125                             CWP-1286-2023
                                Date of decision:23.01.2023


Chur Singh                                            ... Petitioner

                                Vs.

State of Haryana and others                           ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL


Present: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

                     ***

SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)

Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226/227 of

Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari

quashing order dated 05.05.2022, Annexure P-7, whereby his claim for

promotion to the post of Superintendent, has been rejected.

Counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

By order dated 05.10.2018, Annexure P-3, petitioner, who was

working as Statistical Assistant, was given the additional charge of the

post of Superintendent. Despite the fact that the Department sent the file

to the Government vide letter dated 11.09.2019, Annexure P-4, for fixing

a meeting of DPC, promotion was not made and petitioner superannuated

from service on attaining the age of retirement on 31.10.2019.

Subsequent thereto, by order dated 31.12.2019, Annexure P-5, the

juniors of the petitioners have been promoted. After his retirement,

1 of 2

petitioner cannot stake his claim for promotion and seek parity with his

juniors. The claim raised by the petitioner insofar as promotion is

considered is hereby rejected.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has made another

prayer. He submits that despite having been given the additional charge

of the post of Superintendent vide letter, Annexure P-3, petitioner has

not been paid the salary of the higher post. Counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary-

cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Versus Hari Om Sharma 1998 (3)

S.C.T. 90.

Notice of motion to this limited extent.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. A.G.,

Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Given the nature of order being passed, this Court does not

deem it appropriate to call for a response from the respondents.

Having heard counsel for the parties, writ petition is disposed

of with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of

salary for the additional charge, in case, there is no legal impediment in

doing so. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to payment, it be

disbursed to him within four months from today.

23.01.2023                                        (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal                                               JUDGE

          Whether Speaking/Reasoned            Yes/No
          Whether Reportable                   Yes/No




                                 2 of 2