Punjab-Haryana High Court
Din Dayal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 18 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051716
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:051716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
233 CWP-1653-2019 (O&M)
Decided on :18.04.2024
DIN DAYAL .PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS . . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated
27.04.2016 (Anneuxre P-13) by which, the claim of the petitioner is for the
grant of pay equivalent to that of Library Attendant which claim of the
petitioner has been declined by the respondents.
2. Further prayer of the petitioner is that one of the junior, namely,
Bacha Naryan who is working in the health department has been promoted
as Assistant and he is getting more salary then the petitioner, hence the
petitioner is also entitled for the step-up of his salary equivalent to that of
Bacha Naryan.
3. The claim of the petitioner is being rejected by the respondents
on the ground that the notification dated 21.02.1992, copy of which has been
appended as Annexure P-1, which is being relied upon by the petitioner to
claim the benefit of step up of his salary only relates to the Library
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051716
CWP-1653-2019 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:051716
attendants whereas , the petitioner is working as Swasthya Sahayak, which is
a class-IV post, hence, no benefit of said notification dated 21.02.1992
(Annexure P-1) can be extended to the petitioner.
4. With regard to step-up the equivalent pay to that of Bacha
Narayan, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner, though initially
petitioner was working in the health department but after the bifurcation of
the said department, the petitioner has been allocated the department of Food
and Drugs Administration, Haryana, which is totally a separate department
and as the petitioner as well as Bacha Narayan are working in two different
departments there is no question of inter se seniority between them, hence,
no grievance can be raised by the petitioner with regard to any salary being
paid to Bacha Narayan.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a settled principle of law that the right of equation of post
and the grant of the salary qua a particular post is within the jurisdiction of
the employer. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming that keeping in
view the notification dated 21.02.1992 (Annexure P-1) as the petitioner is
also a matriculate, he is entitled to be treated as class III employee so as to
give him salary equivalent to one being given to matriculate library
attendants.
7. It may be noticed that the petitioner is working as Swasthya
Sahayak which post concededly is not the part of the notification dated
21.02.1992 (Annexure P-1). The court does not have any power to include
any category of post into the notification published by the administaration
so as to grant any relief. Unless and until the post of Swasthya Sahayak is
included in the notification dated 21.02.1992 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051716
CWP-1653-2019 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:051716
cannot claim the salary of a matriculate library attendant. The claim of the
petitioner has rightly been declined by the respondents as not admissible.
8. With regard to the second claim of the petitioner that his junior
Bacha Narayan is getting higher salary hence his pay should be step-up, this
claim of the petitioner also cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that the petitioner as well as
Bacha Narayan are working in a different department after the bifurcation
of the same.
9. Even if initially Bacha Naryan was junior to the petitioner in
the department of health, but after the bifurcation of the said department
and the petitioner been allotted the department of Food and Drugs
administration coupled with the fact that there is no inter se seniority between
the petitioner and Bacha Narayan any more, petitioner cannot claim that
Bacha Narayan is junior to him. In the absence of any inter se seniority
between the petitioner and Bacha Narayan, it cannot be said that the Bacha
Narayan will remain junior to the petitioner even after the bifurcation of the
department.
10. Further the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the recommendation made by the Civil Surgeon dated 09.05.2013 vide
Annexure P-9, the petitioner is entitled for the step up of his salary, is no
ground. The entitlement is to be seen on the basis of orders/notifications
issued by the Government time to time and not on the basis of any
recommendation made by any authority not competent to grant the benefit
and that too by ignoring the actual notification. It may be noticed that while
making the recommendation, nothing has come on record as to whether the
issue has been examined whether the post of library attendants is to be
equated with that of Swasthya Sahayak. The Civil Surgeon has no power to
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051716
CWP-1653-2019 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:051716
make such recommendation as the authority only lies with the competent
authority which is the Government.
11. With regard to the last claim of the petitioner that the petitioner
is entitled for equal salary by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 455 of 1988, titled
as Jaipal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on
02.06.1988. It may be noticed that no benefit of said judgment can be given
to the petitioner. Nothing has come on record to show that the post of
Swasthya Sahayak as well as Lab Attendant are identical in any manner.
Nothing has been brought to show that both the said posts has been treated
as equivalent at any given point of time. Even otherwise, the equivalence can
only be decided by expert or by the Government and not by the Court. In
the absence of any such documents being placed on record to show that the
Government has treated the post of Swasthya Sahayak and Lab Attendant
equivalent, no benefit of Jaipal Singh' s case (Supra) can be extended to the
petitioner.
12. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
present case recorded herein above, no ground is made out for interference in
the present petition, hence the same stands dismissed.
13. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
18.04.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
