Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 August, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) LPA No. 1053 of 2014 (O&M )
Paramjit Singh
.... APPELLANT
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... RESPONDENTS
(2) LPA No. 1090 of 2014 (O&M )
Rajinder Pal Kaur and others
.... APPELLANTS
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF DECISION : 25.08.2014
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present : Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate,
for the appellant.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) This order shall dispose of two intra court appeals, bearing LPA Nos. 1053 and 1090 of 2014 against the common order dated 31.3.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby two writ petitions, one filed by Paramjit Singh (CWP No. 12241 of 2009) and the other filed by Rajinder DASS NAROTAM 2014.08.28 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA Nos. 1053 & 1090 of 2014 -2- Pal Kaur and others (CWP No. 20221 of 2009) praying for grant of deemed date of appointment to them as ETT teachers from 24.12.2001 with all consequential benefits, instead of February, 2003, have been dismissed.
Though there is a delay of 15 days in filing LPA No. 1053 of 2014 and 12 days in filing LPA No. 1090 of 2014 and the appellants have filed applications (CM Nos. 2397-LPA and 2455-LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits, and gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge.
Undisputedly, in this case, 7,230 posts of ETT (JBT) teachers were advertised on 2.4.2000, out of which 303 posts were ear-marked for District Mansa. Later on, considering the backlog of quota for physically handicapped persons, number of posts were reduced to 298. Out of these 298 posts, 60 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste. All the appellants belong to the said category. After completion of selection process, 50 posts in Scheduled Caste category were filled and 10 posts remained vacant. The appellants herein along with others filed CWP No. 6215 of 2002 (Megh Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) seeking a direction to the authorities to fill up the vacant posts in Scheduled Caste category. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.4.2002 with a direction to the competent authority to decide the legal notice served by the appellants, by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, on 7.9.2002, the District Departmental Selection Committee ordered that vacant 10 posts in Scheduled Caste category be filled up. Consequently, the appellants were given appointments DASS NAROTAM 2014.08.28 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA Nos. 1053 & 1090 of 2014 -3- in February, 2003. Undisputedly, at the time of joining on the posts, the appellants did not raise any objection with regard to the date of their appointments. They remained silent for about six years. Thereafter, they submitted a representation that they should be given appointment from 24.12.2001, the date, the other 50 persons were appointed on the post. When the said representation was not decided, the appellants again approached this Court by filing these two writ petitions, seeking direction to the respondents that their deemed date of appointment be fixed as 24.12.2001 instead of February, 2003. Both these petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, while observing as under :-
"In my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted even that relief-- firstly for the reason that when the petitioner was offered appointment in February, 2003, he joined service without raising any issue or making a claim for any benefit immediately thereafter. He continued serving for a period of about six years before raising the issue regarding grant of benefit from an earlier date. If the pay of the petitioner is fixed by treating him to have been appointed in December, 2001, when the other candidates in the same selection were appointed, the same would result in creating anomalous situation for the reason that though the petitioner may be ranking lower in seniority list, but will be getting more salary. Once the period prior to the date of appointment of the petitioner is not to be counted treating him not to have been appointed deemingly from that date, he cannot be held entitled to any benefit for that period. It cannot be merely fixation of pay."
It is an admitted position that before the learned Single Judge, the appellants gave up their claim with regard to salary, seniority and counting DASS NAROTAM 2014.08.28 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA Nos. 1053 & 1090 of 2014 -4- of their entire service for qualifying service for consideration of their case for promotion to the post of Master. However, they confined their prayer only with regard to notional fixation of their pay with effect from December, 2001. The said claim has been rejected by the learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that rejection of the claim of the appellants with regard to notional fixation of their pay by the learned Single Judge is unreasonable and illegal. We do not find any substance in this argument. It has not been disputed that in between 2001 and 2003, many persons have been appointed on the post on transfer basis. Those persons are admittedly senior to the appellants. But if the relief claimed by the appellants with regard to notional fixation of their pay is allowed, then an anomaly will be created and those persons, who are admittedly senior to the appellants will get less pay. This is not permissible under law. Therefore, neither under law nor under equity, the appellants have any case, particularly when they have sought the relief after about six years and no explanation was given in that regard.
No merit.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
August 25, 2014 ( ARUN PALLI )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2014.08.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document