Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs Punjab Mandi Board on 13 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002979
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2025 11:15:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002979
CWP No.822 of 2021 2025:PHHC: 002979
No.40 as compared to Karamjit Singh, who was placed at seniority No.41 as
per Annexure P-1. Although, Karamjit Singh was junior to the pe!!oner in the
cadre of Dra$sman, but on account of reserva!on policy in promo!on for SC
Category Employees, said Karamjit Singh was promoted as Head Dra$sman
on 23.07.2004 against the roster point reserved for SC category employees.
Comparing to Karamjit Singh, the pe!!oner was promoted as Head
Dra$sman on 27.08.2014 against his own seniority. At that !me, pe!!oner
was s!ll working in the cadre of Head Dra$sman, though later on said
Karamjit Singh was further promoted as SDO on 20.04.2016.
3. It is the case of the pe!!oner that as he catched up with
Karamjit Singh in the cadre of Head Dra$sman, therefore, by applying the
principle of 'catch-up' as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
"Ajit Singh Janjua & Others v. State of Punjab and others", 1999(4) RSAJ 211
(SC), he became senior to Karamjit Singh in the cadre of Head Dra$sman and
was en!tled to be granted the benefits accordingly. It is contended that
though by applying the principle of 'catch-up', pe!!oner became senior to
Karamjit Singh in the cadre of Head Dra$sman, but the pe!!oner was
drawing lesser salary comparing to Karamjit Singh, as salary of the pe!!oner
was not stepped up at par with his junior Karamjit Singh, who by virtue of his
earlier promo!on was drawing higher pay than the pe!!oner. By referring to
various other authori!es as rendered by this Court from !me to !me,
pe!!oner by way of this pe!!on has prayed for issuing the writ of
mandamus to step up his pay at par with the roster point promotee Junior
Scheduled Caste Category Employee, namely, Karamjit Singh.
4. Opposing the pe!!on, it is contended by the respondents that
pe!!on suffers from delay and latches, which is not explained by the pe!!oner, inasmuch as pe!!oner had re!red on 31.12.2014 on a8aining the age of superannua!on, whereas he made his representa!on in the year 2017 and then sent legal no!ce on 01.02.2020. It is contended that once the pe!!oner ceased to be on the cadre itself, there was no ques!on of him being senior or junior to any of the other employees a$er 31.12.2014. It is also the conten!on of the respondents that as on 01.10.2014, pe!!oner was Page 2 of 5 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2025 11:15:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002979 CWP No.822 of 2021 2025:PHHC: 002979 already receiving higher salary than Karamjit Singh and as such, there was no ques!on of any anomaly. It is also contended that the authori!es cited by the pe!!oner are not applicable to the facts of this case. With these submissions, prayer is made for dismissal of the present pe!!on.
5. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the record.
6. Controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.5956 of 2008 !tled as "Charan Dass v. State of Haryana" decided on 18.11.2008; CWP No.17280 of 2011 !lted as "Prem Kumar Verma v. State of Haryana", decided on 07.08.2012; CWP N:
9870 of 2014 !tled as "Anant Ram Sharma vs. State of Haryana", decided on 02.07.2015; and CWP No.18307 of 2011 !tled as "Gurmeet Singh and another v. Punjab School Educa3on Board and others", decided on 06.12.2012. These judgments are based upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua's case (supra), wherein it was held that though a reserved category employee can be promoted on a higher post on the basis of reserva!on (roster point), but whenever a senior general category employee catches up with that reserved category junior employee on the higher post, the senior general category employee will be declared senior on that par!cular post and will be granted benefits accordingly.
7. In Charan Dass's case (supra), the claim of the pe!!oner was allowed by holding that he was en!tled for benefit of stepping up at par with his junior Schedule Caste category employee. Similarly in Prem Kumar Verma's case (supra), the pe!!oners were General Category employees and were held en!tled for the benefit of stepping up their pay at par with their junior Amar Singh from the date of their promo!on to the post of Accounts Clerk. The consequen!al benefits were also directed to be released to them.
Same view was taken by this Court in Anant Ram Sharma's case (supra) Gurmeet Singh's case (supra).
8. The conten!on of the respondents to the effect that since the pe!!oner had already re!red on 31.12.2014, so there was no ques!on of Page 3 of 5 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2025 11:15:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002979 CWP No.822 of 2021 2025:PHHC: 002979 offering any promo!on to him a$er that date, has absolutely no merit. Admi8edly, Karamjit Singh was promoted as Head Dra$smen under SC category on 23.07.2004, whereas pe!!oner was promoted in the same Cadre of Head Dra$smen against his own seniority on 27.08.2014. It is also not disputed that pe!!oner was placed at seniority No.40; whereas Karamjit Singh was junior to him having been placed at Serial No.41. It is, thus, clear that when pe!!oner was promoted as Head Dra$sman, Karamjit Singh was s!ll working as Head Dra$sman and thus, pe!!oner had catched up with Karamjit Singh in the Cadre of Head Dra$sman and therefore, by applying the principle of 'catch-up' as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua's case (supra), the pe!!oner became en!tled for stepping up of his pay on the principle of 'catch-up'.
9. Simply because Karamjit Singh was later on promoted as SDO on 20.04.2016, i.e. a$er the superannua!on of the pe!!oner on 31.12.2014, cannot be a ground to decline the benefit of stepping up of his pay in the cadre of Head Dra$sman on 27.08.2014, when the pe!!oner was promoted as Head Dra$smen against his own seniority.
10. Another conten!on of the respondents that pe!!oner was already receiving higher salary than that of Karamjit Singh and so, there is no ques!on of anomaly, has also no merit. As per the reply filed by the respondents themselves, as on 27.08.2014 when the pe!!oner was promoted, he was geBng salary in the pay scale of `20,280 + `4,600 + `150; whereas, Karamjit Singh was drawing the salary in the pay scale of `21,150 + `4,400 + `150. Thus, the salary of Karamjit Singh was higher than that of the pe!!oner. Although due to pay fixa!on as per the op!on, the salary of pe!!oner was later on increased to `21,800 + `4600 + `150 w.e.f. 01.10.2014 but pe!!oner was en!tled for step up at par with Karamjit Singh as on 27.08.2014, when he was promoted in the Cadre of Head Dra$smen.
11. Consequent to the aforesaid discussion, the present writ pe!!on is allowed. Respondents are hereby directed to step up the pay of the pe!!oner at par with his roster point promotee junior Scheduled Caste Page 4 of 5 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2025 11:15:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002979 CWP No.822 of 2021 2025:PHHC: 002979 category employee namely Karamjit Singh as on 27.08.2014 in the cadre of Head Dra$smen.
12. As pe!!oner has already superannuated on 31.12.2014, so it is directed that he would be granted no!onal pay fixa!on at par with Karamjit Singh in the cadre of Head Dra$smen and therea$er, he will be granted revised pensionary benefits accordingly. Exercise is directed to be completed and financial benefits are directed to be released to the pe!!oner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of cer!fied copy of this order.
Pe!!on is allowed accordingly.
January 13, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Page 5 of 5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2025 11:15:01 :::