STATE OF HARYANA Vs. VIJAYVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff -respondent (herein referred as, 'the plaintiff'), could not succeed in his suit whereby he had challenged the order withholding annual increments w.e.f. 1.1.2002 to 1.1.2006 and also for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the defendants that they should release all the increments due in his favour. However, the first appellate court, vide judgment dated 11.1.2010 allowed the appeal and the plaintiff was awarded following relief : -

(2.) THE plaintiff submitted that he joined the Jail Department, Haryana as Warder on 15.1.1968 and retired at the age of superannuation on 31.8.2006. He was earlier promoted as Head Warder and thereafter as Sub Assistant Superintendent on 17.11.1999, but he wrongly reverted to the post of Head Warder. However, he was again promoted to the post of Sub Assistant Superintendent by giving him seniority w.e.f. 31.12.1998 and thereafter promoted as Assistant Superintendent vide order dated 31.3.2003, from where he retired on 31.8.2006. It has been further submitted that after his promotion as Sub Assistant Superintendent, he was not granted annual increments for the period 1.1.2002 to 1.1.2006. The written representation made by him were paid no heed by the department. Though, he was informed that his case was under consideration, yet, later on, Superintendent District Jail, Rewari orally informed him that his request was declined on the ground that he had not passed the departmental examination. It was contended that he was not given opportunity of being heard and that he has been discriminated against by the defendants inasmuch as Virender Pal Singh, who was promoted as Assistant Superintendent after him, who has now been retired from service, had also not cleared the departmental test but was given the benefit of all the due annual increments. Thus, the order stopping the increments was challenged.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Sub Assistant Superintendent, vide order dated 18.11.1999 (Ex.PW1/E) and was reverted back to the original post of Head Warder vide order dated 16.8.2002 (Ex.PW1/F). The plaintiff also does not dispute that on representation for claiming seniority amongst the Sub Assistant Superintendent from 31.12.1998 instead of 18.11.1999, he was ordered to be promoted as Sub Assistant Superintendent w.e.f. 31.12.1998, vide order dated 1.10.2002 (Ex.PW1/G). The plaintiff also does not dispute that he was awarded increments w.e.f. 1.1.2000 and 1.1.2001. Later on, he was further promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent vide order dated 25.3.2003 (Ex.PW1/H). The main dispute is with regard to stopping of annual increments w.e.f. 1.1.2002 to 1.1.2006 and further grievance of the petitioner is that the said annual increments were stopped without giving any notice to him, nor providing him opportunity of being heard. Mainly the dispute in this case is with regard to interpretation of Rule 9 of the Service Rules, 1963. Rule 9 of Service Rules, 1963 reads as under : -