Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rachna Loona vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 September, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126125-DB
LPA-264-2021
1
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-264
264-2021 (O&M)
Reserved on 003.09.2024
Pronounced on: September 23, 2024
Rachna Loona ......Appellant
vs.
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate, forr the appellant.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause
Clause-X of the Letters
Patent Appeal Act, is preferred against the judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1280
1280-2021, whereby prayer of the
petitioner for stepping up her pay equivalent to her junior, w
was
as dismissed on
the ground of delay and latches.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the Civ
Civil
il Writ Petition are that
the petitioner
etitioner joined the services of the respondents as Mistress on
27.04.1992, whereas one junior namely Seema Rani joined the ser
services
vices on
19.06.1992. The petitioner was promoted as
a Lecturer on 24.10.2001 and the
junior namely Seema Rani was also promoted as Lecturer on 13.09.2008.
Before promotion, the petitioner was granted an increment of ACP after a
service of 8 years i.e. in the year 2000, whereas the junior was granted total
three increments of ACP,
ACP first ACP was granted after a service of 8 years in
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126125-DB
LPA-264-2021
the year 2005, 2nd and 3rd ACP's were granted after 9 and 14 years of service,,
in the year 2006. Therefore, when junior namely See
Seema
ma Rani was promoted as
Lecturer on 13.09.2008, she was drawing the basic pay of Rs.22750/-,,
whereas the petitioner was getting the basic pay of Rs.21910/
Rs.21910/-. Thus,, the
anomaly was
as created and the petitioner is getting less pay than her junior.
3. The petitioner made representation, which was accepted on
14.10.2015 and her pay was re-fixed.
re fixed. The petitioner on not being satisfied,
kept representing. On 03.05.2016,, the previous order passed regarding re
re--
fixing her pay was withdrawn by the respondents. A specific order in this
regard was passed. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the aforesaid
order by filing the civil writ petition in January, 2021.. However, the writ
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment
dated
ted 05.02.2021 on the ground of delay and latches. Hence the present
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contends as under:-
(i) That the claim of the appellant/petitioner has wrongly been
That
rejected by the learned Single Judge only on the ground of delay
and latches.
(ii) That the learned Single Judge has not touched the real issue
That
involved in the civil writ petition. He, therefore, prays that the
present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge be set aside.
5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent
respondents argues on the
lines of the judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge
and contends that since the appellant-petitioner
appellant petitioner approached the Court after a
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126125-DB
LPA-264-2021
delay of about 4 ½ years, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of the case.
7. A perusal of the reply dated 16.12.2023 filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shows that initially the appellant was appointed as
Science Mistress on 27.04.1992 and thereafter, she was promoted as Lecturer
(English) on 24.10.2001. Seema Rani (Junior employee) was appointed as
Science Mistress on 19.06.1992 and was promoted as Lecturer (Economics))
on 13.09.2008.
8. Further, before promotion, the appellant was granted an
increment of ACP after the service of 8 years in the master cadre. The junior
employee (Seema Rani) was granted total three increments of ACP after a
service of 8 years, 9 and 14 years in master cadre. Therefore, on 01.11.2006
01.11.2006,,
the basic pay of the appellant was Rs.20650/-
Rs.20650/- and the basic pay of the junior
employee (Seema Rani) was Rs.20,800/.
800/. On 01.11.2006
01.11.2006, the appellant was
working as Lecturer (English) and the junior
unior employee ((Seema
Seema Rani) was
working as Science Mistress i.e. different cadre where anomaly has created.
9. The reply further shows that as on date, the department has not
issued any final seniority list of Master Cadre, therefore, the appellant
appellant--
petitioner cannot claim herself to be senior.
10. It has rightly been observed by the learned Single Judge that the
order challenged in the writ petition was dated 003.05.2016, whereas the
appellant-petitioner
petitioner preferred the civil writ petition in the year 2021 i.e after
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126125-DB
LPA-264-2021
unexplained delay of about 4 ½ years. The writ petition was
was, thus, rightly
dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and latches.
11. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by the lear
learned
ned Single and the same is
affirmed.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
13. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR
SURESHWAR THAKUR)
THAKUR (SUDEEPTI
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
September 23,
23 2024
G Arora
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
4 of 4
