Punjab-Haryana High Court
R.S.Rana vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 5 February, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.18553 of 2005
Date of decision : 05.02.2010
R.S.Rana ...Petitioner
versus
The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present : Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
None for respondents 4 to 7.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner, who is a Production Supervisor in HAFED seeks for consideration for being promoted to a higher post as Deputy General Manager from the date when persons junior to him had been promoted.
2. As per the contentions of the petitioner, the channel of promotion to the next higher post as Deputy General Manager was holding of post as Rice Mills Manger or Production Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. The claim of the petitioner was that as the Civil Writ Petition No.18553 of 2005 -2- Production Supervisor holding the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, he was entitled to be considered for promotion being senior to respondents 4 to 7, who had all been promoted.
3. The contention on behalf of the respondents was that although the respondents 4 and 5 were on scale of 5450-8000, they had been allowed the pay scale of 6500-9900 having earned a second ACP w.e.f. 01.04.1998 and allowed for a scale of 6500-10500 as personal measure by the Government vide order dated 18.09.2003 w.e.f. 05.04.2001, since the service was found to be satisfactory at the time of allowing the pay scales. As regards the respondents 6 and 7, it had been originally pleaded that they were in the pay scale of 5450-8000 and when the query was as to how they had been granted promotion, this Court had directed on 04.08.2009 to file an affidavit explaining as to how respondents 6 and 7, who were working in the pay scales of 5450-8000 were granted promotion to the post DGM, when the rules provided for promotion only to post of Rice Mills Manager who are getting the pay scales of 6500-10500.
4. Subsequent to the direction from the Court, an affidavit purporting to be a "better affidavit of Shri S.P.Gupta, Secretary," had been filed. The additional affidavit sets out that respondents 4 to 7 were allowed 6500-10500 scales as personal measure w.e.f. 05.04.2001 and immediately in the next succeeding sentence, the words are as follows:-
"Respondents 6 and 7 were not allowed the pay scales of 6500-10500 since the service record was not satisfactory."
A subsequent sentence which contradicts the earlier sentence in the para gets a further twist in paras 7 and 8. In para 7, it is stated that 6th Civil Writ Petition No.18553 of 2005 -3- respondent was in the pay scale of 5450-8000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and that further he was not allowed the pay scales of 6500-10500 as personal measure w.e.f. 05.04.2001 vide order dated 10.09.2003. If he had not been granted any higher scale on a personal measure, the reference to the order as being effective from 05.04.2001 and that it was done through an order dated 18.09.2003 is certainly confusing and deliberately meant to mislead. In the 8th para, it is again stated that the 7th respondent's scale was revised 5450-8000 w.e.f. from 01.01.1996 and that "he was not allowed the pay scales of Rs.6500-10500 as personal measure on 05.04.2001 like respondents 4 and 5 vide order dated 18.09.2003 as his service records was not satisfactory." It is not understood as to how when he was not being afforded a higher scale and a parity of consideration of a higher scale as obtained for respondents 4 and 5 is made in this sentence. Again the attempt has been to introduce an expression deliberately intended to obfuscate.
5. Evidently it has so happened that the 7th respondent has been promoted on 20.08.2007, although admittedly junior to the petitioner, when he was not in the requisite scale for promotion. The denial of promotion to a petitioner when a junior had been promoted, is definitely actionable at the instance of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner cannot compare himself to the position of the respondents 4 and 5 who have earned a higher scale earlier to the petitioner and placed higher on seniority ranked 1 and 2 but the promotion afforded to the 7th respondent on 20.08.2007 will entitle the petitioner to be promoted to the Deputy General Manager post w.e.f. Civil Writ Petition No.18553 of 2005 -4 - 20.08.2007, the date when his junior was promoted and he shall also be entitled to all the monetary benefits attended to on such promotion. The writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
7. Having regard to the fact that I have held that the additional affidavit contains deliberate misleading details, the 3rd respondent is directed to take appropriate action against S.P. Gupta, the Secretary, Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Limited, HAFED Corporate Office, Panchkula, and recover the costs awarded in this case from the salary of the said individual.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.02.2010.
sanjeev