INDRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question mooted in this writ petition is whether an employee who has been promoted with retrospective effect is entitled to the benefit of arrears from the date he was promoted.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that he was working as Clerk in the Agriculture Department, Haryana. A person junior to him was promoted as Accountant with effect from 6.6.1978 ignoring the seniority of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation against this action of the respondents. After quite a long time, the respondents accepted the representation of the petitioner and promoted him to the post of Accountant vide order dated 8.2.1995, (copy Annexure P-1) from the date ;he person junior to him was promoted, i.e. 16.6.1978. Order Annexure P-1, however, carried a rider "The arrears from 16.6.1978 upto the date of joining as Accountant will not be given." The petitioner in consequence upon his promotion joined the post of Accountant on 14.2.1995. A copy of joining report of the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. A I'ter joining his duties as Accountant, the petitioner made representations (copies Annexures P-3 and P-4) demanding payment 'of arrears from 16.6.1978 to 13.2.1995. These representations were considered and rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 12.12.1995. The petitioner did not keep silent over the issue of payment of arrears and again made a representation, copy Annexure P-6 demanding the same relief. He specifically requested that reasons for rejecting his representations may be intimated to him. This representation as well, met with the same fate and was rejected by order dated 9.2.1996, Annexure P-7. Still another representation, Annexure P-8 made by the petitioner also did not bring any fruit and was rejected by order dated 5.4.1996, Annexure P-9 on the ground "the official has not worked on the post of Accountant during the said period hence, he cannot be paid arrears of the post of Accountant for this period." This led the petitioner to serve a legal notice on the respondents wherein he requested for payment of arrears for the aforesaid period along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. A copy of legal notice has been attached with the petition as Annexure P-10. Petitioner's another representation, Annexure P-) 1 seeking the same relief was also rejected by the respondents by order dated 6.2.1998. AnnexureP-12. Being dismayed with the outcome of his requests, the petitioner has now filed this petition seeing quashment of the condition imposed regarding denial of arrears as contained in his promotion order Annexure P-1, on the grounds of it being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents by filing a written statement mainly on the ground of delay and laches. It is claimed that cause of action arose to the petitioner when his junior was promoted as Accountant in the year 1978, but he represented against his promotion, for the first time in the year 1994. It is also indicated that initially the petitioner was working as Clerk in the Head Office cadre w.e.f. 13.9.1971 and later on, on his own request, he was transferred to the field cadre w.e.f. 16.3.1972. Since the petitioner had changed his cadre, his name could not be included in the seniority list of the clerical staff of the Agriculture Department, inadvertently. But the petitioner did not raise any objection against the seniority list. His name was included in the seniority list of the field staff on 1.1.1986 and his name stood at serial No. 161. It is also claimed that on 16.6.1978 one Sher Singh, another person junior to the petitioner was also promoted as Accountant, but the petitioner did not represent against his promotion. Petitioner's first representation for his promotion as Accountant was received in the office of the respondents on 9.1.1994 when (one) Prahlad Singh, still another person junior to him was considered. But the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered/examined for the reason "that there was no vacant post of Accountant against which the petitioner could be considered for promotion immediately." However, the petitioner was promoted by order dated 8.2.1995 with effect from 16.6.1978 i.e. the date his junior Prahlad Singh was promoted. It is thus claimed that since the petitioner was himself responsible for the delay in his promotion and because he had not actually worked an Accountant during the period in question, a condition was imposed in his promotion order that he will not be entitled to the arrears from the date of his promotion.