PARTAP SINGH NARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Partap Singh Narvval is Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor Junior (A Group) in Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, Chandigarh. He seeks quashing of the order dated 18.6.1998 by which the claim of the petitioner for the grant of scale of Rs. 2200 -4000 had been rejected. The petitioner seeks a direction that he should be granted the said scale.

(2.) THE facts alleged are that the petitioner is a graduate in Engineering. He was appointed as Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor (Technical) Group A Junior and joined as such on 9.9.1996. The said post is governed by the statutory rules called the Haryana Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, (Group -A) Service Rules, 1989 ( for short "the Rules"). Under the said Rules, three posts namely, Assistant Director Technical Group -A Junior, Principal Technical Industrial Training Institute Group -A Junior and Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor (Technical) Group -A Junior are of equal status. All the above three categories are entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director Technical/Deputy Apprenticeship Advisor (Technical) Group A Senior. When the pay scales were revised with effect from 1.4.1979, all the three categories were granted the same pay scale i.e. Rs. 900 -1700. There is only one post of Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor (Technical) Group -A Junior. Before 1996, the said post was lying vacant. On 30.3.1982, the pay scales of other two categories, namely, Assistant Director (Technical) Group -A Junior, Principal Technical Industrial Training Institute Group -A Junior were revised from Rs. 900 -1700 to Rs. 940 -2000 w.e.f 1.2.1981 but the claim of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner submitted representation which has since been rejected. The petitioner claims that the impugned order rejecting his representation is not valid because the post of Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor (Technical) Group -A Junior can be filled up by direct recruitment or by promotion from the Assistant Director (Technical) Group -B. In this process, the post of Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor (Technical) Group -A Junior is higher post and Assistant Director (Technical) Group -B is a feeder post. The pay scale of the feeder post necessarily should be lower and in this process the petitioner cannot be denied his rightful claim to a higher scale.

(3.) IN separate written statement filed by respondent No. 2, the plea raised is that the services of the petitioner is governed by the Haryana Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department (Group -A) Service Rules, 1998. These rules were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As per Appendix 'A' of these Rules, the pay scale of the post of the petitioner is Rs. 2000 -3500. The post of Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor (Technical) Group -A Junior) remained vacant for a long time. The same was advertised in the scale of Rs. 2000 -3500. The petitioner was selected. It is denied that the petitioner, indeed, is entitled to any higher scale.