Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 February, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 3349 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 3349 of 2011
Date of Decision : February 13, 2012
Tarsem Kumar and another
.... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. R.S.Budhwar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners, who were appointed as General Duty Constables (Electrician) are claiming technical pay scale in the light of the fact that the post of Electrician held by them has been declared a technical post.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that an advertisement was issued on 13.11.2001 whereby, apart from CWP No. 3349 of 2011 2 appointing General Duty Constables, Technical Constables for various posts were to be appointed which included Constables (Electrician). Petitioners have passed their 10+2 Vocational Education Course from Haryana Education Board, Bhiwani. The qualification for the post of General Duty Constables was Matric whereas for the post of Technical Constables was Matric with diploma in the respective field from I.T.I. Claim of the petitioners for the grant of technical pay scale has been declined merely on the ground that the petitioners do not possess diploma from I.T.I. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that vide communication dated 15.05.2008 (Annexure P-17), the competent authority i.e. the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Haryana Government, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, has declared the Vocational Education Scheme in Vocational Education Institute including Electrician as equivalent to trades of Industrial Training Institute because the syllabus of I.T.I. is similar to the syllabus of Vocational Educational Institute. On the basis of this document, counsel contends that the petitioners fulfil the requirement of the respondents and the stand of the respondents declining the benefit of the technical pay scale to the petitioners is not sustainable.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the requirement, as per the advertisement itself, was that the candidates should have possessed diploma in I.T.I. with two years CWP No. 3349 of 2011 3 experience which the petitioners do not possess as they had only passed 10+2 with Vocational Course which is not as per the prescribed advertisement and, therefore, cannot be granted the pay scale as claimed by them. However, he could not dispute the fact that for the appointment to the post of General Duty Constables, the requirement is only Matric whereas for the Technical Constables, it is Matric plus diploma in the respective field from I.T.I. Counsel for the respondents has further contended that the petitioners have been appointed as General Duty Constables and, therefore, on this basis also, they are not entitled to the said claim. Further, there is no separate cadre of Technical Constables and they all are included in the general cadre disentitling them to the claim as has been made in the present writ petition.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
It is not in dispute that for the post of General Duty Constables, the educational requirement is only Matric whereas for the post of Technical Constables, it is Matric plus diploma in the respective field from I.T.I. Petitioners, in response to the advertisement dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure P-1), submitted an application for consideration for appointment to the post of Technical Constable (Electrician) as they had passed 10+2 with vocational training (Electrician). It is not in dispute that the petitioners were duly selected on the post of General Duty Constables (Electrician), which is apparent from the appointment orders Annexures R-1/2 and R-2/2 CWP No. 3349 of 2011 4 appended with the written statement filed by the respondents where it is so mentioned. In the written statement, which has been filed by the respondents, in the preliminary objection No. 1, it has been stated that the petitioners had applied for the post of Constable Electrician in 1st India Reserve Battalion, Bhondsi, Gurgaon in the year 2001. The petitioners were found eligible for the post of Constable Electrician by the Selection Board constituted for the recruitment and the petitioners were given appointment on 19.06.2002 and 28.08.2002 respectively. It has also been admitted that the petitioners possessed Senior Secondary certificate examination in the Maintenance and Repair of Domestic Electrical Appliances issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana. The petitioners were appointed as Constable Electrician against the post of General Duty Constables in the pay scale of ` 3050-85-4235-EB- 100-5325. This leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioners possessed the required qualification and the respondents having accepted the same cannot be now allowed to turn around and say that the petitioners do not possess the required qualification for the post of Technical Constable (Electrician) as they do not possess the I.T.I. Diploma. The petitioners being eligible for appointment to the post and having an equivalent diploma course to that of diploma from I.T.I. is also substantiated from the communication dated 15.05.2008 (Annexure P-17) issued by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Haryana Government, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, which is the competent authority to equate CWP No. 3349 of 2011 5 technical training course. Communication dated 15.05.2008 reads as follows:-
"Subject: For making equivalent, Courses which are going on in Vocational Training Institutes to the courses which are going on in the Industrial Training Institute.
The Courses which are going under the vocational Education Scheme in Vocation Education Institute following vocations are declared equivalent to trades of Industrial Training Institute, because the syllabus of ITI is very similar to the syllabus of Vocational Educational Institute:-
Sr. Trades of I.T.I. Trades of V.E.I.
Vocation
1 xxx xxx
2 Electrician Electrician
(Maintenance and
Repair of electrical
and Domestic
appliances
3 xxx xxx
4 xxx xxx
5 xxx xxx
6 xxx xxx
7 xxx xxx"
In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners did not possess the qualification for appointment to the CWP No. 3349 of 2011 6 post of Technical Constables (Electrician). Further, it has been so mentioned in the advertisement that the Technical Constable (Electrician) will also be required to perform the duties of General Duty Constables. This puts to rest the stand of the respondents that they were appointed against the post of General Duty Constables. They may be performing the duties of Technical Constable as well as that of duty of General Duty Constable as and when required but that does not deprive the petitioners the benefit of the pay scale which they are entitled to in the light of the fact that they have been appointed on a technical post.
The contention of the counsel for the respondents that there is no separate cadre for Technical Constables does not carry weight for the simple reason that the petitioners have been appointed on the post of Technical Constables which itself shows that the petitioners are required to possess a higher qualification than the General Duty Constables, thus entitling them to the scale which they are claiming i.e. the technical pay scale.
In view of the above, the reasons assigned by the respondents denying the petitioners the technical pay scale cannot sustain. Accordingly, order dated 03.11.2010 (Annexure P-21) denying the petitioners the technical grade cannot sustain and is hereby quashed.
Petitioners are held entitled to the technical scale i.e. ` 4000-6000 as they were appointed and are working on the technical post of electrician as claimed by them. Pay of the petitioners be fixed CWP No. 3349 of 2011 7 in this pay scale and arrears released within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The arrears shall, however, be restricted to 38 months prior to the date the petitioners made the claim through representation or from the date of filing of the writ petition, whichever is earlier.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
February 13, 2012 JUDGE
pj