Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Iqbal Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 20 April, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.5 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11680/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/08/2011
in LPA No. 938/2011 in CWP No. 15806/2009 passed by the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
IQBAL SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 20/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Monika, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Deepak Thukral, Dy.AG
Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
On 23.02.2015, the following order was passed :
“Mr. Deepak Thukral, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Haryana, prays for some more time to get the scheme notified. With a lot of anguish, we are granting the adjournment as we Signature Not Verified had been apprised long back that the State Digitally signed by Government was keen on stopping the stagnation as Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.04.24 14:36:16 IST regards the certain employees by providing a Reason:
promotional avenue. It is the duty of a welfare State to take a decision in this regard in quite promptitude. But, unfortunately, we find that there is laxity.2
Be that as it may, as prayed for by Mr. Thukral, let the matter be listed on 20th April, 2015.” Despite the aforesaid order, nothing has been done. Learned counsel for the State repeats the said submission that the State is still considering the scheme. We have already expressed our anguish that there is stagnation in a cadre which should not be there and accordingly, a scheme was proposed as was sent to the State Government for ratification. A welfare State has an obligation either to accept the scheme or make a rule so that the petitioners do not miss an opportunity to compete for a promotional post. The authorities who are in-charge of ratifying the scheme must understand that when we say there should be a promotional avenue, we are not concerned with the lis in question. Whether the petitioner herein would be promoted being found suitable or not is totally another matter. The issue is that they should be treated eligible for a promotional post. Therefore, as a last chance, we command the Chief Secretary of the State to take the decision either to frame rules or to accept the scheme so that an avenue is available creating a promotional cadre for the post of Constable-Drivers. The Chief Secretary shall himself file the affidavit with regard to the progress of the matter.
Let the matter be listed in the first week of July 2015.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master