Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mastan Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043723
CWP-17743-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:043723
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102 WP-17743-2019 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 02.04.2024
Mastan Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. D.S. Rawat, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
CM-4988-CWP-2024
Prayer in the present application is for preponing the date of
hearing of the main case from 23.07.2024 to some earlier date, it being a
covered case by judgment in Didar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others,
CWP-4625-2016, decided on 28.02.2024 and for its disposal in terms thereof.
Forthereasonsmentionedintheapplication,thesameisallowed
and Annexure P-10 is taken on record and the main case is preponed and
taken up on Board today itself.
Main Case
1. The present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
ConstitutionofIndia,isfiledforissuanceofawritforquashingtheimpugned
letter dated 06.09.2018,AnnexureP-9aswellasfordirectingtherespondent
tostepupthepayofthepetitionersatparwiththeirjunior,withconsequential
benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum on arrears from date of
entitlement till actual payment made.
2. ThepetitionerswereappointedasTracersonregularbasisunder
thegeneralcategoryinJanuary,1984.However,Sh.JagdishKumar,whowas
juniortothemwasgrantedacceleratedpromotionvideorderdated23.10.1989
as Draftsman being a reserved category candidate, by virtue of which, he
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043723
CWP-17743-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:043723
-2-
started to draw higher pay. Though, the promotion of the petitioners took
place to the aforesaid post on 07.10.2009, 13.10.2009 and 03.12.2008,
respectively, however, their pay still remained lower than him.
3. Theissueisnolongerres-integrathatthepayofaseniorcannot
be lower than his junior, as was held in the case of Didar Singh (supra),
wherein the petitioners prayed for the step up of their pay at par with their
junior, who being in reserved category, was promoted before them. The
relevant paras thereof read thus:
" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the issue, as
involvedinthepresentpetitions,hasalreadybeendealtwithand
decided by this Court vide judgments dated 18.11.2008,
CWP-5956-2008, titled as Charan Dass vs. State of Haryana,
AnnexureP-4and07.08.2012,CWP-17280-2011,PremKumar
Verma and others vs. State of Haryana, Annexure P-5 and
06.12.2012,CWP-18307-2011,GurmeetSinghandanothervs.
Punjab School Education Board and others, Annexure P6.
Theythuspraythattheinstantpetitionsmaybedisposedofinthe
same terms. TherelevantportionofCharanDass(supra),reads
thus:-
"(iv) The grievance of the petitioner against
the respondent, the failure on the part of the
respondents to step up the pay resulted in gross
inequity and the Civil Surgeon, Kaithal had even
recommended the caseofthepetitionerfornotional
promotionandforsteppinguphispayvidehisletter
dated 17.05.2007. The petitioner served a legal
notice on the respondents on 23.07.2007 and
followed it up with CWP 17344 of 2007. The
respondentsissuedtheimpugnedproceedingsonthe
ground that the petitioner had been promoted from
the post of Deputy Superintendent (Level 3) to the
Superintendent (Level 4) while Rameshwar Dass
Jangra had superannuated even without reaching
Level 4. The impugned proceedings restricted its
owninstructionsdated14.11.1999andlateraffirmed
byinstructionsdated27.11.2006tobeconfinedonly
to situation where a junior employee of reserved
category reaching Level 3alsoreachedLevel4and
since Rameshwar had alreadysuperannuatedbefore
reaching Level 4, the stepping up of pay did not
arise. The restrictive application which the
impugned proceedings made, seems in our view,to
be not based on any legal reasoning and
non-sequeter. The instructions themselves came to
be issued only to give effect to the decision of the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043723
CWP-17743-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:043723
-3-
Hon'bleSupremeCourtwhichclearlylaysdownthat
a employee in the general category though may be
promoted to a later date, would catch up at the
promotion post with a junior employee who had
been promoted earlier on a roster point. The action
of the respondent also betrayed invidious
discriminatorytreatmentIthattheDirector,Food&
Supplies Department had appliedtheinstructionsto
the case of Munish Kumar over the claims of Shri
Rajbir Singh as seen from the proceedings of the
Director, Food & Supplied Department, Haryana
dated13.07.2007(AnnexureP-3)andeventheChief
Secretary to Government of Haryana has issued an
order dated 13.11.2007 setting out the correct
position as to how Ajit Singh Jasuja's disposition
was to be understood and applied to similar
situation.
V Conclusion:-
( v) The petitioner isentitledtobesteppedup
in his scale of pay on the date of his promotion to
the next higher post as Assistant on par with his
junior Rameshwar who was promoted earlier and
stilllatertothepostsofDeputySuperintendentsand
Superintendents at the respective Levels 2, 3 & 4
from the dates when he assumed office at the
promotion posts. The impugned order dated
04.02.2008 is set aside and the writ petition is
allowed as prayed for."
3 .LearnedStatecounselisunabletorebutthefactualpositionin
this matter and also cite any contrary law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the presentpetitionsaredisposedof
in terms of the judgment passed in Charan Dass, Prem Kumar
Verma and Gurmeet Singh (supra)."
4. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts was unable to
controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgments orcite any contrary law.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of the judgments in the cases ofDidar Singh(supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
0 2.04.2024 JUDGE
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
