Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal Danda vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 4 May, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.18672 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.18672 of 2010
Date of Decision:- 04.05.2012
Satpal Danda ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
The State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P-3) vide which the claim made by the petitioner for grant of pay-scale equivalent to that of respondent No.5- Satbir Singh Sabharwal, who was promoted as Lecturer prior to the petitioner only on the ground that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste category and had attained promotion on the basis of instructions belonging to that category only, otherwise, for all intents and purposes, he was junior to the petitioner in the feeder cadre.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent No.5 were working as Masters in the Education Department. Petitioner admittedly was senior to respondent No.5 in that C.W.P.No.18672 of 2010 -2- cadre. As respondent No.5 belonged to Scheduled Caste category, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer in November, 1995. Petitioner could not be promoted till 10.4.2007 as Lecturer. On attaining promotion, he is entitled to the benefit of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court as also the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) which provided for the principle of catching up. He, therefore, claimed the benefit of pay parity with his junior in the light of these instructions which claim has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P-3). He contends that the benefit which the petitioner is entitled to on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Janjua and others vs. State of Punjab and others, JT 1999 (7) SC 153 and instructions dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained. Reliance has also been placed on the instructions dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure P-5) which reiterates the principle of stepping up of pay of senior general category employees at par with their junior counter-parts of reserved category employees. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the instructions dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure R-1) wherein it has been stated that those general category candidates who have been promoted prior to 15.3.2006 have to be given benefit of the instructions of catching up and stepping up of pay at par with their juniors. He contends that the instructions fixing the cut-off date is based upon the 85th amendment to the Constitution of India which was implemented by the C.W.P.No.18672 of 2010 -3- Government of Haryana on 16.3.2006. With the coming into force of the 85th amendment, reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Backward class category was increased to promotional posts also. He, accordingly, submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondents.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
The facts are not in dispute. The question which requires consideration is whether the cut-off date fixed by the respondents in their instructions dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure R-1) is justified and in accordance with law for granting the benefit of stepping up of pay and the principle of catch up with regard to the general category candidates, who are senior vis.a.vis. junior reserved category candidates, who attained a march over the seniors because of reservation benefit. This aspect need not detain this Court for long as the right to promotion which was primarily based on the instructions has been given a constitutional sanctity with the amendment to the Constitution of India and Government of Haryana has implemented the 85th amendment in the Constitution w.e.f. 16.3.2006. If the promotional reservation has attained a constitutional sanctity, the benefit of catching up and stepping up of pay at par with that of the juniors belonging to the reserved category, who had been promoted on the basis of instructions providing for reservation can only be given effect to prior to coming into force of the 85th amendment to the Constitution of India.
With the implementation of the amendment to the Constitution, the right which had accrued to the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua's (II) case (supra) and the C.W.P.No.18672 of 2010 -4- instructions which have been issued subsequent thereto, cannot have effect beyond 15.3.2006. As the petitioner was promoted on 10.4.2007 which is a date subsequent to 15.3.2006, he cannot be granted the benefit as per the instructions, reliance whereon has been placed by the petitioner.
The impugned order is, thus, in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
May 04, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
poonam JUDGE
C.W.P.No.18672 of 2010 -5-