SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A pivotal question of law has been referred to the instant Full Bench by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.9.2010. The aforesaid question is frequently raised in service matters and it affects a large number of employees. The question framed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

(2.) Brief facts of the case may first be noticed in order to put the controversy in its proper prospective. The petitioner Subhash Chander was working as Accountant in the Municipal Committee, Ratia. He along with others was given the charge of post of Secretary of the Municipal Committee, Ratia against a vacant post on 2.11.1996 (P.1). It is pertinent to mention that his senior Ramesh Dayal, Superintendent and Vijay Kumar, Accountant were promoted as Secretaries w.e.f. the date they took over the charge vide order dated 22.5.1997. Thereafter S/Shri Mahipal Singh, Gurcharan Dass and Satish Kumar, Accountants, who were given the charge of the post of Secretaries in pursuance of order dated 2.11.1996 (P.1) were also promoted as Secretaries of Municipal Committees w.e.f. 22.5.1997 (P.2). It is also pertinent to mention that in accordance with the seniority list dated 3.12.1993 (P.4) Satish Kumar, Accountant, is immediate senior to the petitioner. However, Shri Satish Kumar refused promotion and never joined on the post of Secretary. Consequently, the petitioner made a request for his promotion. The President, Municipal Committee also issued a letter dated 26.5.1997 (P.3) requesting the State Government-respondent no. 1 to order regular and long term promotion of the petitioner. The work and conduct of the petitioner was found to be praise worthy. It was also recorded that the petitioner was drawing higher standard scale of Rs. 1640-2900 as against Rs. 1400-2600. The petitioner has also asserted that no promotion was ordered after 1988 till 1.6.2006.

(3.) The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 3.5.2006 and was placed under suspension. Eventually he was exonerated in the regular enquiry conducted by the Deputy Director vide order dated 22.2.2007 (P.5). The suspension period of the petitioner was treated as duty period for all intents and purposes. However, during the course of enquiry persons junior to the petitioner were given regular promotion as is evident from the order dated 1.6.2006 (P.6). The petitioner made a representation for unfair treatment meted out to him asserting that he being senior most Accountant was holding the charge of Secretary since 11.12.1996. The request made by him did not evoke any response. The respondents, however, again issued another frivolous charge sheet on 4.5.2007 which was dropped by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 11.1.2008 (P.7). The case of the petitioner was also recommended by the President of the Municipal Committee, Bhawani Khera vide letter dated 16.4.2007 for long term and regular promotion w.e.f. 11.12.1996. Again, the petitioner made a representation on 8.10.2007 (P.8). He moved another representation on 3.3.2008 asserting that besides promotion on long term basis he deserved consequential benefit of higher pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 on completion of ten years service while working as Secretary because one Vijay Kumar had also been paid proficiency step up in the aforesaid pay scale when he had completed ten years of service as such. The petitioner filed CWP No. 5957 of 2008 in which the respondents filed reply acknowledging the facts that record of the petitioner was good and that he stood exonerated in the departmental enquiry held against him. It was further stated before this Court that in the written statement filed by the respondents (P.9), the case of the petitioner for regular promotion was under consideration. On 11.8.2008, the Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order which reads thus: