SUBE SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails order dated 16.10.1998, Annexure P -5, stopping him from crossing the efficiency bar and the order dated 16.10.1998, Annexure P -6 denying him the benefit of 1st and IInd higher standard pay scales effective from 1.1.1994 in accordance with the Government instructions dated 8.2.1994.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as J.B.T. Teacher and subsequently promoted as Master in the month of May, 1968. He was allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.4.1978 and the next efficiency bar was due to be crossed w.e.f. 1.4.1992. However, the same was not allowed taking into account his service record. Thereafter, his case was considered subsequently also and ultimately impugned order dated 16.10.1998, Annexure P -5, was passed which reads as under : -

(3.) The Government of Haryana issued instructions dated 8.2.1994, Annexure P -1, vide which all the employees of Group 'C' and 'D' were to be granted higher standard pay scales on completion often years or more and twenty years or more of regular satisfactory service. The case of the petitioner is that according to the Government instructions, Annexure P -2, the crossing of efficiency bar can be allowed if the employee has 50% good reports in the last 10 years of service earlier to the due date of crossing of efficiency bar. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide Government instructions dated 9.5.1985, a government employee who has 70% or more of good record is entitled to be considered for promotion. The petitioner retired from service on 30.11.1 996 and subsequent thereto his juniors have been promoted as Headmasters, Middle School and Head Masters, High School but the case of the petitioner was never considered. He filed representation in the month of July 1998. He claims that according to his service record, he has 6 good reports and one average and 3 reports were not available and his claim has been ignored solely on the ground that he did not have good reports in the last 10 years. Consequently, the petitioner has also been denied the benefit of 1st and 2nd higher standard pay scales on the basis of denial of crossing of his efficiency bar.: The petitioner claims that when he had completed 55 years of service, the respondents considered his continuation in service beyond that age and ultimately he was allowed to continue in service on the basis of the same record and as per Government instructions, Annexure P -8, the continuation of an employee after the age of 55 years can only be if he has 70% good reports in the last 10 years. The petitioner claims that the action of the respondents is not warranted under the law. He seeks quashing of the impugned orders Annexures P -5 and P -6.