RAM PHAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure P-12) vide which the claim/request of the petitioner for granting him stepping up of the pay equivalent to that of Umed Singh, an employee under reserved category, who was initially junior to him has been declined.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that when Umed Singh was promoted as Assistant in the year 1980, petitioner was senior to him and therefore, he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent. He contends that on his promotion as a Deputy Superintendent, in the light of the instructions of the Government of Haryana dated 05.03.2009 (Annexure P7), he would be entitled to the stepping up of pay as he becomes senior to Umed Singh, a reserved category candidate on the said post. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that although initially there was a joint cadre and joint seniority maintained by the Clerical and Stenographer cadre, however in the year 1998 new rules for the clerical cadre came into existence. According to which seniority of the clerical cadre as well as stenographer cadre was separated. Source of promotion of Umed Singh is from the clerical cadre whereas petitioner belongs to the Stenographer cadre. On the date when the petitioner was promoted as a Superintendent i.e. on 27.04.1999 the new rules of the year 1998 had come into effect and therefore the cadre of the two i.e. the petitioner and Umed Singh were different and thus, he would be covered by the instructions dated 05.03.2009 wherein as per the provisions in para 7 Note 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Amended Pay Scale), 2009 both the Government servant junior and senior should belong to the same cadre and the posts against which they have been promoted should also be same cadre. Although the petitioner is on the post of Superintendent but when he was promoted as a Deputy Superintendent the clerical as well as the stenographer cadres had been bifurcated and they were having distinct seniority which therefore does not fall within the provisions as contained in the instructions dated 05.03.2009 (Annexure P7).

(3.) Finding no merits in the present case, the same stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.