HARI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 3569 of 2008 with a prayer for issuing appropriate direction to the Respondent -State to amend the rules known as the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) Rules, 1998 by making provisions in Rule 9 of the 1998 Rules by including category of Work Shop supervisors as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 4.8.2009 has issued directions to the Respondents to consider the prayer made by the Petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, on 26.3.2010 (Annexure P -14), Respondent No. 2 -Engineer -in -Chief, Haryana has passed an order stating that the Respondent -State had framed Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 (for brevity 'the 2008 Rules') in order to remove stagnation in service. The aforesaid Rules/Scheme has been framed to ensure that all Government servants working in the State of Haryana whose cadre are not covered by any Career Progression during the entire service may get at least three financial up -gradations. The scheme ensures that no Government servant stagnates without any financial up -gradation for more than 10 years unless he has availed three financial up -gradation in his career. The competent authority for Assured Career Progression Scales is to grant them up -gradations of completion on 10, 20 and 30 years regular/satisfactory service in terms of 2008 Rules. The aforesaid order dated 26.3.2010 has now been challenged in the instant petition by urging that functional promotion for one step should also be given instead of merely granting financial up -gradation.

(2.) THE claim made by the Petitioner has been opposed. In para 2 of the preliminary submissions, the Respondents have taken the stand that Work Shop Supervisors could not be included in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer especially when they are not to suffer any monetary loss. According to the written statement, under Rule 9 read with Appendix B of the 1998 Rules only Special Foreman and Foreman Miscellaneous are entitled for appointment by promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and there is 10% quota provided by Rule 9(i) for the aforesaid two feeder cadres. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner to include the Work Shop Supervisor as a feeder cadre has been declined and reliance has been placed on the 2008 Rules.