Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Chander & Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 November, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1318 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1318 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 8, 2010
Jagdish Chander & others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH.
PRESENT: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj Advocate, for
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant without insisting upon the condition to pass the type test. Prayer is to promote the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 w.e.f. 2.4.2008 and petitioner No.3 w.e.f. 26.5.2009. These are the dates when their juniors were promoted respectively. Prayer further is to release all the increments and arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum and for issuance of any further writ or direction. As per the petitioners, they would be entitled to promotion on the basis of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1318 of 2010 -2- S.L.P. No.5294 of 2006, which is rendered against the judgment given by this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Tilak Raj, decided on 23.7.2008.
The State had bifurcated the Department of Social Welfare into two separate departments w.e.f. 1.4.1992. The petitioners were appointed prior to 1992 and initially were employees of the Department of Social Welfare. Their service conditions were governed by the rules as applicable to the employees of the Department of Social Welfare, known as Haryana Social Welfare Department and Relief Organization (State Service Class-III) Rules, 1975. As per Clause 4 of the letter of appointment, it was prescribed that the petitioners shall be required to pass type test in both English and Hindi languages within a period of 6 months from the date of joining the duty, failing which the petitioners shall not be allowed annual increment. On bifurcation, the petitioners were transferred to the Department of Women and Child Development. No rules were framed to govern the condition of employment for this newly created Department. It was decided by the Government that till such time the Service Rules are framed in the newly created Department, the Women and Child Development shall be governed by rules applicable to Social Welfare Department. There was no requirement of passing any type test to the post of Assistant from the Clerk as per these Rules. It was only the condition in the appointment letter referred to above, which was applicable in the case of the petitioners. This condition was also imposed in respect of large number of employees and the Clerks, who had not cleared the type test and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1318 of 2010 -3- they had filed C.W.P. No.18333 of 2002 titled as Tilak Raj Versus State of Haryana before this Court. The petitioner therein claimed promotion to the post of Assistant-cum-Accountant and the benefit of ACP after completion of 10 years regular service. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.8.2005 and copy thereof is placed on record as Annexure P-3. It is clearly noticed in the said order that there is no requirement of passing type test for promotion. The stand taken by the Department in the written statement was noticed that passing of the type test had been made mandatory and the petitioner therein having failed to pass type test, was not entitled to promotion.
While taking this stand into Consideration, the Division Bench of this Court had held:-
"Admittedly, respondent No.4 was promoted in 1995 i.e. at the time when the Rules of 1975 were in operation. To our mind, it is, therefore, clear that the case of the petitioner would have to be dealt with under the Rules of 1975 and the stand of the respondents that he was covered by the 1998 Rules is clearly untenable. We, therefore, quash the impugned order Annexure P-8 and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion in this background from the date when respondent No.4 had been promoted. The entire exercise will be completed within four months from today. Should the petitioner succeed in getting CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1318 of 2010 -4- promotion the respondents shall consider his claim towards the grant of consequential relief as well."
Reference is made to another writ petition No.16828 of 2002, which was filed by the employees of the Department of Women and Child Development. The claim therein was also for promotion w.e.f. their juniors were promoted as Assistant along with the consequential benefits. The said writ petition was also disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioners therein in terms of order dated 16.8.2005 passed in Tilak Raj's case (Supra). When the directions issued by this Court were not complied with, the petitioners therein filed COCP, where the stand was taken that the judgment passed in the said case has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The S.L.P. against this order was finally dismissed on 23.7.2008, upholding the order dated 16.08.2005. Thereafter, the respondent-Department has implemented this order. The petitioners make reference to all these facts to say that there is no reason to deny similar and identical relief to them.
After hearing counsel for the parties, the case was adjourned for today for Mr. Rathee to have instructions. Instead of coming out with some stand, Mr. Rathee prays for some more time.
In view of what has been noticed above, the prayer for adjourning the case is declined. To me the issue involved in the present writ petition appears to be squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.18333 of 2002 decided on 16.8.2005, which has further been upheld by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1318 of 2010 -5- Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this background, there is no reason to decline the relief to the petitioners in terms of order passed by this Court. The stand of the State in not granting relief to similar situated employes and forcing them to approach the Court, is not appreciated. If the issue is settled by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same should be implemented, rather than forcing each individual to approach the Court. There is no reason noticed or pointed out to draw any distinction in the present case. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.W.P. No.18333 of 2002 decided on 16.8.2005 . The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of direction contained in order Annexure P-3. The petitioners shall also be held entitled to costs assessed Rs.5000/-.
November 08, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE