Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Pal Singh vs Hy.State Minor Irrigation Tubewells ... on 3 September, 2014
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
KUMAR MANOJ
CWP No. 6190 of 1997 #1#2014.09.06 10:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 6190 of 1997
Date of Decision:-03.09.2014
Jai Pal Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Minor Irr. Corp. and Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- None for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner was appointed as T/Mate on 1.2.1984 in the pay scale of Rs.70-80/-. He was posted at the workshop Division HSMITC, Karnal and allowed pay scales from time to time as adopted by the respondent- Corporation. His pay w.e.f 1.1.1986 was fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs.750-940/-. The petitioner has passed his Matriculation examination and possesses a Certificate in turning trade from Haryana Polytechnic, Nilokheri, which comprised of six months training only.
Petitioner through the instant writ petition is claiming a modified pay scale of Rs.950-1400/- w.e.f 7.10.1992 on the basis of Instructions dated 5.2.1993 issued by the Government granting the said revised scale for the Technical posts for which the minimum qualification was ITI Certificate/Diploma. He further seeks quashing of the order dated 26.3.1997 (P.1) denying the said pay scale while deciding his representation.
Upon notice, respondent-HSMITC has filed a reply and stated that the petitioner was appointed as T/Mate for which the essential qualification is neither a Diploma nor Matriculation. It is further stated that the petitioner was neither a Matriculate or does possess any technical qualification from ITI or Polytechnic for becoming eligible for the said CWP No. 6190 of 1997 #2# modified scale in terms of the Policy. It is further stated that the petitioner has completed six months' training under a TRYSEM Scheme introduced by the Government of India to give training to un-employed literate as well as illiterate persons. Said Certificate of the petitioner is neither an ITI diploma nor any Certificate granted by the Polytechnic in pursuance of technical education.
Learned counsel for the respondent-HSMITC contends that apart from the petitioner having failed to make out any case on merits, states at Bar that the respondent-Corporation stands wound up/closed w.e.f 30.7.2002 and all its employees (including the petitioners) stand retrenched after observing all legal formalities. This Court has already dismissed the writ petitions challenging the closure and the subsequent retrenchment of its employees. He further states that the State Government has formulated a Policy vide Notification dated 21.6.2006 for adjustment/re-employment of the retrenched employees of various Corporations/Boards/Undertakings including the HSMITC. Petitioner would, thus, be adjusted if not already in various Government Department/undertakings in terms of the said Policy or to be extended the benefit of one time settlement. He therefore states that the present writ petition has become infructuous.
None has come present on behalf of the petitioner to rebut the aforesaid factual position.
In view of the statement made by counsel for the respondent- Corporation at Bar, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 03, 2014 manoj