DEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 3.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the benefit of the 'ACP' cannot be granted to the appellant as the fact of his being senior to one Shri Ramesh Kumar is disputed. On account of dispute on the question of facts, the appellant was relegated to the remedy of filing a civil suit.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which have led to the filing of the instant appeal are that the petitioner-appellant having worked on the post of Diesel Pump Operator was eventually promoted to the post of Fitter in the year 1978. In 1981, he was given further promotion on the post of Mechanic and he became Head Mechanic after another promotion. He retired as such on 30.9.2007 at the basic pay of Rs. 7,100/- per month. The Government of Haryana has framed the Rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which are known as the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for brevity, 'ACP Rules'). The petitioner-appellant was deprived of second 'ACP', which led to the filing of CWP No. 7101 of 2001 (Madan Gopal and others v. State of Haryana and others). On 5.7.2002, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the aforesaid petition in terms of an order of even date passed by it in CWP No. 19722 of 1999. The order of the Division Bench in CWP No. 19722 of 1998 in turn referred to earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court, which have attained finality and the same reads as under:-

(3.) The matter again travelled to Hon'ble the Supreme Court and as per the assertion made by the petitioner-appellant it has been held that if a person junior to the appellant has been given the benefit of the ACP Rules then the same could not be denied to him. Therefore, the short question which arises for consideration is whether the appellant is senior to one Shri Ramesh Kumar, Mechanic, who has been granted the benefit of ACP Rules and who was also one of the petitioner alongwith the appellant in CWP No. 19722 of 1998.