Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 26 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128685
CWP-1419-2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
859
CWP-1419-2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.09.2024
Satbir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the
communication dated 11.12.2008, whereby the claim for stepping up of pay
equivalent to respondent No.4, who was junior to the petitioner, was rejected.
2. Learned State counsel makes a reference to the written statement,
against which no replication has been filed, relevant paras whereof read thus:
"The comparison of the petitioner with the respondent
No.4 on the ground of Junior& Senior is untenable
because the petitioner was appointed as Asst. Electrician
and Respondent No.4 was appointed as Asst. Battery
Attendant. The Seniority is decided according to the cadre
and at Depot level. It is quite pertinent to mention that the
respondent No.4 was granted the technical scale of 480-
760 w.e.f. 01.02.1981, where as the petitioner was not
granted the I.T.I. scale since in his service record he was
shown non I.T.I. Further more stepping up of senior can
be considered only when both employees are on the same
post.
4. That the contents of Para No. 4 of the petition are
wrong and hence denied. At the time of appointment of
the petitioner and respondent No.4 I.T.I. was not
prescribed qualification for the appointment to the post of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128685
Asstt. Electrician and Asstt. Battery Attendant. The
petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Electrician by G.M.
Haryana Roadways, Hisar vide order No.3842/ECW
dated 14.06.1979 and as per record he was shown as
Matric. Where as respondent No.4 Sh. Dalbir Singh was
appointed by G.M.Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani as Asstt.
Battery Attendant on 03.11.1980 and as per record he was
shown as Matric + I.T.I.
5. That the contents of Para No.5 of the petition are wrong
and hence denied as the petitioner is shown as Matric, so
he was not given technical scale. Where as the respondent
No.4 being Matric + I.T.I. Made application for technical
scale on 29.06.1986 and in compliance of Head Office
letter No.23937-52/E4/EII- dated 24.07.1987 the
respondent No.4 was granted the technical scale of 480-
760 w.e.f. 01.02.1981. It is worthwhile to mention that
above letter No.23937-52/E4/EII- dated 24.07.1987 was
issued by the Head Office in reference to CWP No.185 &
186 of 1987 in which the respondent No. 4 was party, and
the instructions were confined only to the petitioners in
the above said CWP. In this way the case of the petitioner
for technical scale was not covered under instructions
dated 24.07.1987."
3. As a matter of fact, during the interregnum, Haryana (Abolition
of Distinction of pay scale between technical and non-technical posts) Act,
2014 has been promulgated, whereby the Instructions granting technical scale
have been withdrawn from the date of their issuance with a proviso regarding
those already granted the upgraded pay scale to continue with the same as a
measure personal to them. The relevant Section whereof reads thus:
"4. The entry at serial number 3 under 'common category
posts' in the annexure to instructions bearing No. 1/54/2PR
(FD) -82, dated 30-03-1982, at serial number 40 in
annexure A to instructions bearing No. 6/23/3PR (FD)-88,
dated 23-08-1990, No. 6/23/3PR(FD)-88, dated 26-07-
1991 and No. 6/83/2009- 3PR (FD), dated 09-08-2010 are
hereby withdrawn and shall be deemed to have been
withdrawn with effect from the date of their coming into
force:
Provided that all those persons who had already been
granted unconditionally the up-graded pre-revised pay
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128685
scale and drawing the same before date of notification of
the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of Pay Scale
between Technical and Non-technical Posts) Ordinance,
2013 (Haryana Ordinance No. 6 of 2013), viz the 10th
December, 2013, shall continue to draw these pay scales,
as a measure personal to them."
4. It would be gainful to refer to the judgment passed by the Full
Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals, the lead one being State of
Haryana & Ors. vs. Sunder Sham & Ors.1, operative portion whereof reads
thus:
"A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09th
April, 2013 having differed with the view taken earlier by a
Coordinate Bench in Ved Parkash & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana [CWP No. 5665 of 1991] decide on 11th May,
2010 and Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2012[2]
SCT. 126 referred the following questions of law for their
authoritative determination by a larger Bench:
"[a] Whether the incumbent to a post is entitled to
pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 and/or Rs.950-1400
irrespective of the qualification?
[b] Whether such pay-scale is admissible only to the
holders of the technical posts so specified either in
the relevant recruitment rules or in the Executive
instructions or in terms of requisition seeking
appointment of the said post?
[c] Whether appointment of a candidate who is a
matriculate or ITI irrespective of nature of post is
entitled to higher pay scale?
[d] Whether a candidate who is appointed to a post
for which there was no technical qualification but by
subsequent promultation of Rules or Executive
Instructions, the technical qualifications is made
mandatory whether such incumbent is also entitled
to a higher pay scale?
[e] Whether a candidate who is working on a
technical post but without any qualification is
entitled to a higher pay scale on the basis of
experience only?"
xxx xxx xxx
[4]. In view of the fact that the very foundation of the
1 LPA-393-2013, decided on 11.12.2013
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128685
claims raised by varied sets of employees, namely, the
Executive Instructions have been withdrawn from the
date[s] these were issued and the distinction between
'Technical' and 'Non-Technical' posts having been
eliminated, we are of the considered view that the
questions of law formulated for our determination vide
reference order dated 09th April, 2013 no longer survive
and have become redundant.
[5]. The impact of the Ordinance on the pending Letter
Patent Appeals or Civil Writ Petitions can be effectively
gone into by the concerned Bench[es] in accordance with
law."
5. A similar plea taken, as in the case at hand, has already been
rejected by this Court in Mukesh Kaushik vs. State of Haryana2, relevant
paras whereof read thus:
"5. A perusal of the above reproduced provisions shows
that various instructions issued over a period of time,
including instructions, Annexure P-2, have been
withdrawn. Proviso to Section 4 of the Act of 2014 protects
those employees, who have been extended the benefit of
technical pay scale prior to 10.12.2013, that is, the date
from which the Ordinance came into force. It has been
provided that such employees shall continue to draw
technical pay scale as a personal measure.
6. In view of the above, reliance placed by the counsel for
the petitioner upon judgment of the co-ordinate Bench, will
not come to his aid as it has been passed much before the
coming into force of the Act of 2014."
6. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
26.09.2024
dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 CWP-8093-2023, decided on 20.04.2023
4 of 4
