Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parma Nand vs State Of Haryana Through Secretary To ... on 8 October, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.W.P. No.10996 of 1996 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.M Nos.8535-36 of 2013 and
C.W.P. No.10996 of 1996
Date of Decision. 08.10.2013
Parma Nand, Inspector Audit, Cooperative Societies, Haryana Dabwali,
District Hissar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Cooperative
Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others
......Respondents
Present: Pt. Randhir Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.8535 of 2013
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 49 days in filing the restoration application is condoned.
Application is allowed.
C.M. No.8536 of 2013 For the reasons stated in the application, order passed by this Court on 06.03.2013 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.
Application is allowed.
C.W.P. No.10996 of 1996
1. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Sub Inspector, Audit in the Cooperative Department on 01.04.1964 has a grievance that the Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.22 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.10996 of 1996 -2- 3rd respondent, who was appointed subsequently on 21.11.1966 to the same post, was promoted from a Class III post to Class II post as an Assistant Registrar on 01.02.1996 before the petitioner himself was promoted. He would, therefore, seek for consideration for promotion to the promotion on the same day when his junior was promoted on 01.02.1996.
2. The contention is that the petitioner had been inducted in the Department in the unified Punjab and under the State Reorganization Act, the services conditions of persons who had been appointed previously could not be altered except with the permission of the Central Government as per Section 82 (6) of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. According to him, the Rules which were applied by the respondent in affording to the 3rd respondent the promotion were the Rules of the year 1980 and the petitioner himself must have been considered for promotion as per the 1958 Rules namely the Punjab State Cooperative Service Class II Rules. The counsel points out to me that method of recruitment to post of Assistant Registrar, which was a Class II post was either by promotion from Class III or by direct recruitment and since he was a Statistical Assistant, which was a Class III post, he should have been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar on 01.02.1996 on the day when the 3rd respondent was promoted.
3. The contention is defence by the State is that the petitioner, who was appointed as Inspector Audit has gained his promoted in the rank as Junior Auditor, Cooperative Societies in the pay scale of ` 525-1050, while the 3rd respondent himself was not eligible for Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.22 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.10996 of 1996 -3- promotion as Junior Auditor at that time. When the petitioner was promoted in his own parent cadre, the 3rd respondent continued as a Statistical Assistant in the Department in which he was allowed to continue. He was promoted as Assistant Registrar on 01.02.1996 pursuant to a decision of this Court in C.W.P. No.4196 of 1983. The petitioner himself came by a further promotion as Junior Auditor in April 1990 to which post he joined also. From the post of Junior Auditor, the further promotion post was the Statistical Officer which post he subsequently held. The 3rd respondent continued to working as Statistical Assistant in the Department since the year 1980 and as per Rules of the year 1958 after 7 years of experience as Statistical Assistant, he was entitled for consideration to the post as an Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and therefore, he was promoted to that post on 01.02.1996.
4. I have seen through the judgment in C.W.P. No.4196 of 1983 as well. The Court was considering the case of Statistical Assistants, who were complaining that their own candidatures were not being considered for appointment to Assistant Registrar's post and when the post of Statistical Assistant itself required 3 years of experience as Inspector, they could not be excluded for consideration and Inspector preferred to the higher post. On such a line of reasoning, the petition was allowed directing the appointment of the petitioners therein to the post of Assistant Registrar. If the petitioner's case itself had been considered for appointment about the same time to the post of Assistant Registrar then there would have been no ground of objection at all now. However, the petitioner had not filed the writ petition the way the Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.22 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.10996 of 1996 -4- persons Rameshwar Dass and others filed C.W.P. No.4196 of 1983, who had a grievance that their own retention in the Audit Department was not proper and that they should have been considered in the statistical line and moved over. The petitioner though officiated as Statistical Assistant took the post of Junior Auditor and gained promotion in the same line to a still higher post. There is no scope for him to compare himself with the 3rd respondent and seek for his claim for consideration as though he must be deemed to be promoted from the same day when the 3rd respondent was promoted as Assistant Registrar.
5. Where any establishment offers two different lines, some times it gets to be a matter of chance that in one stream, there are quicker avenues of promotion while the other one has a staggered career. When the petitioner and 3rd respondent were appointed as Inspector Audit and when they were promoted as Statistical Assistants subsequently while the petitioner was retained in the parent cadre of Audit as Junior Audit, the 3rd respondent continued as Statistical Assistant and came by quicker promotion in the Statistical Department stream while the petitioner who had secured quicker promotion earlier as Junior Auditor, the 3rd respondent stagnated for a while as Statistical Assistant before taking a jump to the Assistant Registrar. The petitioner cannot now set the clock back and seek for consideration as having been promoted in another stream. I cannot find the benefit that was given to the petitioners in C.W.P. No.4196 of 1983 to be extended to the petitioner as well, for they had resorted to a writ remedy in the year 1983 much before the petitioner had done and when the department was actually accommodating the claims of Statistical Assistants as Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.22 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.10996 of 1996 -5- Assistant Registrar as well to the promotion post, the petitioner could not come by a similar relief only because in the interregnum he had held higher post in the audit section itself and could not be considered to a different placement in the statistical line as Assistant Registrar.
6. I do not find that there is any scope for consideration of the petitioner's claim favourably in the manner sought for. The relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 08, 2013 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.22 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh