CHANDER PRAKASH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HARYANA, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 2556 of 2012

(2.) The promotion, which was made, was sought to be annulled by a reference to a letter issued to the Chairman, Managing Directors of all the Corporations, Companies and Boards on 04.07.1997 that the Finance Department took a decision that all the ex-cadres of Accounts personnel existing in Companies/Corporations/Boards under the Haryana Government would be treated as SAS cadre posts and "next below rule" would not be applicable. This was followed up by yet another letter issued to the Director of Industries by the Commissioner on 02.02.1998 that the promotion granted to the petitioner and the completion of probation that was to take place would be against the spirit of instructions issued by the Finance Department on 20.11.1996. The Board itself was caught in a bind, as it were and it had communicated to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government on 18.05.1998 about how they had allowed for the appointment on the basis of the decision taken by the Board and a retrospective application of the instructions issued on 20.11.1996 would be unfair. This was rejected by the Commissioner on 11.09.1998 stating that the stand taken by the Board was untenable.

(3.) The above exchanges between the Board and the Government would only show that the Board was at some point of time prepared to uphold its own decision to prevail over the Government instructions to operate only in future but they felt fettered by the fact that the Government had stated that the instructions on the subject had been issued on 06.11.1980 itself and that was what was being reiterated by the letter dated 20.11.1996. If there was a policy decision on 06.11.1980 but that had not been given effect to by the Board, while it allowed for the creation of posts and qualifications without necessity of having to possess a SAS qualification, then the State could not have resurrected its own policy of the year 1980 to apply to the disadvantage of an employee. It must be noticed that even the qualification which was stipulated for a Senior Accounts Officer and issued on 14.09.1989 was after a specific approval from the Finance Department of the Government. It only showed that the Government itself was not applying its policy and had allowed the decision of the Board to prevail.