High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Bahadur Singh Batta
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 9943/1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 8565/1997
With
Civil Appeal No. 8565/1997
Petitioner: High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Respondent: Bahadur Singh Batta
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 9943/1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 8565/1997
With
Civil Appeal No. 8565/1997
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 25, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Fundamental Rules – Rule 22 – Stepping up of pay – Cadre of clerks – Temporary employees required to pass departmental exam for being appointed in substantive capacity – ‘B’ not appointed substantively on that score – One ‘ V’ however, appointed at later point of time, in substantive capacity – Court’s decision to adopt continuous length of service as basis of seniority irres-pective of date of passing of exams or exemption from passing of exams – ‘V’ getting higher pay than ‘B’, who applied for stepping up pay – Promotion to higher grades, denied to ‘B’ on grounds of non-substantive appointment. Held that on promotion of ‘B’ to next higher and still higher grades, he was entitled for stepping-up of his pay. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
Civil Appeal No. 9943/1995
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab High Court’ dismissing the High Court Letter Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge. The question for consideration was whether the respondent was enti-tled to claim for stepping up of his pay in terms of the provi-sion of Fundamental Rules on the ground that his erstwhile ju-nior, in the cadre of clerks, is getting a higher salary in the promoted grade of Assistant or still higher grade. It transpires that the employees, who were appointed as clerk on temporary basis, were required to pass a departmental examination for get-ting a substantive appointment, and it is on that score the respondent was not substantively appointed earlier and one Balw-ant Singh Virk, who was admittedly appointed as a Clerk at a later point of time was appointed substantively. The so called administrative decision of the High Court in that regard was assailed, and finally this Court in W.P. No. 331/1972 disposed of the writ petition by holding that the seniority of the employees in the cadre of clerks would be counted from the date on which they were appointed originally irrespective of the date on which they passed the test or were exempted from the passing the test or were confirmed in the cadre of clerks. Obviously, this Court has taken the view that continuous length of service in the cadre of clerks should be the basis for determining the inter-se-seniority. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, the respondent, who was admittedly senior to said Balwant Singh Virk, in the cadre of clerks, filed a representation to the High Court for stepping up of his pay in the higher grade on the ground that his erstwhile junior is getting a higher salary. That representation having been rejected, he filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 31.3.1994. The learned Single Judge noted the fact that it was not disputed that the writ petitioner was senior to said Balwant Singh Virk in the cadre of clerk. On the aforesaid basis, the learned Single Judge directed for stepping up of pay of the writ petitioner so that he would not get less salary than Shri Balwant Singh Virk. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, a Letter Patent Appeal was filed, which stood disposed of by the impugned judgment. The Division Bench in the Letter Patent Appeal considered the provision of Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules, and came to the conclusion, in our view rightly, that the respondent admittedly being senior to Balwant Singh Virk in the cadre of clerks, in the promoted grade, his pay is bound to be stepped up to ventilate his grievances and for removal of the anomalies, as provided in Fundamental Rule 22.The Letter Patent Appeal having been dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred by the High Court.
2. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal appearing for the High Court vehemently contended that the provision of stepping up will not be applica-ble to the case in hand, particularly when the respondent was granted the seniority in the cadre of clerks on the basis of the judgment of this Court. She further contended that the promotion to the cadre of Assistant being not automatum on the basis of seniority, the principle of steppping up would not apply. On examining the relevant facts as well as the provisions of the Rules, and in view of the earlier judgment of this Court, the conclusion is irresistable that the respondent was denied of his promotion to the cadre of Assistant, and still higher in the cadre, on account of a wrong notion of the principle, which stood corrected by the judgment of this Court. That being the position, on the respondent being promoted to the post of Assistant or to a still higher post, he is entitled to get his pay fixed up in consonence with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22, and there-fore no infirmity can be found in the impugned direction of the High Court directing the stepping up of his pay. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed,
Civil Appeal No. 8565/1997
3. The question involved in this appeal is the same, which we have disposed of today in the above said appeal. In view of the order, as stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
4. In course of the arguments, Ms. Jaiswal stated that the direc-tion of the High Court in the impugned judgment has already been given effect to.
Civil Appeal No. 9943/1995
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab High Court’ dismissing the High Court Letter Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge. The question for consideration was whether the respondent was enti-tled to claim for stepping up of his pay in terms of the provi-sion of Fundamental Rules on the ground that his erstwhile ju-nior, in the cadre of clerks, is getting a higher salary in the promoted grade of Assistant or still higher grade. It transpires that the employees, who were appointed as clerk on temporary basis, were required to pass a departmental examination for get-ting a substantive appointment, and it is on that score the respondent was not substantively appointed earlier and one Balw-ant Singh Virk, who was admittedly appointed as a Clerk at a later point of time was appointed substantively. The so called administrative decision of the High Court in that regard was assailed, and finally this Court in W.P. No. 331/1972 disposed of the writ petition by holding that the seniority of the employees in the cadre of clerks would be counted from the date on which they were appointed originally irrespective of the date on which they passed the test or were exempted from the passing the test or were confirmed in the cadre of clerks. Obviously, this Court has taken the view that continuous length of service in the cadre of clerks should be the basis for determining the inter-se-seniority. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, the respondent, who was admittedly senior to said Balwant Singh Virk, in the cadre of clerks, filed a representation to the High Court for stepping up of his pay in the higher grade on the ground that his erstwhile junior is getting a higher salary. That representation having been rejected, he filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 31.3.1994. The learned Single Judge noted the fact that it was not disputed that the writ petitioner was senior to said Balwant Singh Virk in the cadre of clerk. On the aforesaid basis, the learned Single Judge directed for stepping up of pay of the writ petitioner so that he would not get less salary than Shri Balwant Singh Virk. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, a Letter Patent Appeal was filed, which stood disposed of by the impugned judgment. The Division Bench in the Letter Patent Appeal considered the provision of Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules, and came to the conclusion, in our view rightly, that the respondent admittedly being senior to Balwant Singh Virk in the cadre of clerks, in the promoted grade, his pay is bound to be stepped up to ventilate his grievances and for removal of the anomalies, as provided in Fundamental Rule 22.The Letter Patent Appeal having been dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred by the High Court.
2. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal appearing for the High Court vehemently contended that the provision of stepping up will not be applica-ble to the case in hand, particularly when the respondent was granted the seniority in the cadre of clerks on the basis of the judgment of this Court. She further contended that the promotion to the cadre of Assistant being not automatum on the basis of seniority, the principle of steppping up would not apply. On examining the relevant facts as well as the provisions of the Rules, and in view of the earlier judgment of this Court, the conclusion is irresistable that the respondent was denied of his promotion to the cadre of Assistant, and still higher in the cadre, on account of a wrong notion of the principle, which stood corrected by the judgment of this Court. That being the position, on the respondent being promoted to the post of Assistant or to a still higher post, he is entitled to get his pay fixed up in consonence with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22, and there-fore no infirmity can be found in the impugned direction of the High Court directing the stepping up of his pay. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed,
Civil Appeal No. 8565/1997
3. The question involved in this appeal is the same, which we have disposed of today in the above said appeal. In view of the order, as stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
4. In course of the arguments, Ms. Jaiswal stated that the direc-tion of the High Court in the impugned judgment has already been given effect to.
