Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 March, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 22727 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 22727 of 2011
Date of Decision : March 22, 2012
Jagtar Singh and others
.... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb/adjust the petitioners like respondents No. 4 to 10 and Sh. Ram Kumar who has been adjusted vide order dated 15.05.2008 (Annexure P-5) as the petitioners are similarly situated w.e.f. the date their juniors have been adjusted to the post of Clerk from the post of Senior Laboratory Attendants vide order dated 23.08.2004 (Annexure P-1A).
Counsel for the petitioners contends that persons junior to the petitioners, who had earlier approached this Court, had been CWP No. 22727 of 2011 2 granted the benefit of adjustment/absorption to the post of Clerk but the petitioners have not been given the same benefit. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 5544 of 2006 titled as Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 18.02.2008 (Annexure P-3), wherein similarly placed employees had earlier approached this Court claiming the same benefit as the petitioners have made in this writ petition, in which the respondents had conceded the claim of the petitioners therein and in pursuance to which, order dated 30.04.2008 (Annexure P-4) and thereafter, order dated 15.05.2008 (Annexure P-5) were passed. Counsel contends that petitioners are senior to some of the similarly placed employees who were granted the benefit of adjustment as Clerks vide order dated 23.08.2004 (Annexure P-1A). He, accordingly, contends that the petitioners have been discriminated against when they have not been given the same benefit. He further submits that the petitioners have also served upon a legal notice dated 18.05.2011 (Annexure P-8) upon respondents.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case.
The claim of the petitioners is based upon Haryana Civil Services (Promotion of Group C & D Employees) Rules, 1998, wherein it was provided that a Group-C or Group-D employee, who was Matriculate and had put in five years of service in Group-C or Group-D posts or combined experience of five years or clubbed up together and whose scale of pay was less than or equal to the scale CWP No. 22727 of 2011 3 of post of Clerk, would be entitled to promotion to the 20% posts of the Clerk reserved for them. These Rules were rescinded by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 15.11.1999. After the rescinding of the said Rules, no right for absorption can be claimed by the petitioners. In any case, the Rules, which are now applicable and were earlier applicable to the petitioners, are the Haryana Government Education Department, Sub Offices, Ministerial (Group- C) Service Rules, 1983. According to the said Rules, petitioners cannot be adjusted against the posts of Clerks. The claim based upon the juniors, who have been adjusted by the respondents vide order dated 23.08.2004, copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure P-1A, being in violation of the statutory Rules governing the services, cannot be termed as violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as an illegal order passed by an authority, which is in violation of the statutory right, cannot be relied or pressed into service for claiming discrimination on that ground. The order, which has been relied upon by the petitioners in an earlier writ petition, wherein the State had conceded the claim of the petitioners i.e. in Ram Kumar's case (supra) there was no mention of the rescinding of the Rules, which have been relied upon by the petitioners while claiming their adjustment/absorption.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
March 22, 2012 JUDGE
pj