AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ten petitioners herein are working as Reporters in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Secretariat. They are aggrieved by the promotions of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the posts of Superintendents Grade-I. A few facts relevant for the decision of the case may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioners are working as Reporters. Two posts of Superintendent Grade-I fell vacant in Aug., 1990. It is averred that petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 9 filed representations for being considered for promotion to these posts. It is further averred that there are a total of 12 posts of Superintendents Grade-I which have to be filled up from amongst the persons working in the General Branch, the Publication Branch and the Translation Branch in the ratio of 60%, 25% and 15% respectively. As a result, the petitioners claim that out of the 12 posts, only seven can be filled up from amongst the persons working in the General Branch, three from amongst the persons working as Reporters in the Publication Branch and two from amongst the persons working in the Translation branch, viz. Translators. It is further averred that vide letter dated Sept. 12, 1957, the procedure for the selection of the officers/officials for promotion to higher posts had been laid down and that so far as the posts of Superintendents are concerned, the persons who had worked for seven years as "Assistant/Senior Translator/Reporter if otherwise eligible had a right to be considered". The petitioners aver the inspite of their being eligible and suitable and the posts falling to their share being available, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have illegally promoted respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and ignored the right and claim of the petitioners. On this premises, a prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quo-warranto, and mandamus for quashing the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the posts of Superintendents Grade-I has been made. It has been further prayed that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It has been inter-alia point out that the petitioners were originally working in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1400 with a special pay of Rs. 100.00. On Nov. 26, 1986, they submitted a representation for equation of their posts with those of Private Secretaries in the Punjab Civil Secretariat and the consequential revision of their scales of pay and the grant of selection grade. In this representation, it was specifically mentioned that "we hereby surrender out right for promotion as Superintendent if the posts of the reporters are equated with the posts of the private secretaries, for all purposes, as is prevalent in the other State legislatures." Acting on this representation of the petitioners, the pay scales of reporters were initially revised and raised to Rs. 2000-3500 with a special pay of Rs. 200.00, even though in the normal course of events, the persons working in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1400 with a special pay of Rs. 100.00 were entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs. 1800-3200 only. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Anomalies Committee and the petitioners were placed in the pay scale equivalent to the posts of Superintendent Grade-I, viz. Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. Jan., 1986. They were also granted a special pay of Rs. 200.00 p.m. The respondents aver the "all this was done because the reporters had specifically given an undertaking more than once that they will forego their claim to the post of Superintendent Grade-I, if their pay scale is revised equivalent to that of Superintendent Grade-I. I has also been pointed out that the claim of the petitioners with regard to a distinguished record of service of higher degree of proficiency in Stenography is highly exaggerated. It has been pointed out that petitioner No. 1 (who, I am informed, has since died) had not passed the shorthand test at the prescribed speed. The factual position with regard to some of the petitioners has also been given. It has been stated that the classification of the service in the State is under consideration and the decision of the Government in this behalf would be made applicable in the case of Reporters." As a result, it is averred that the matter regarding placing the posts of Reporters in Class-II is still pending consideration with the Government. It has also been averred that the Hon. Speaker, after considering the circumstances in which the grade of Reporters has been revised and the undertaking given by them for the revision of their pay scale, has now finally decided to exclude the reporters for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I as they are enjoying the same scale of pay as is being enjoyed by the Superintendent Grade-I/Private Secretary. However, to provide further chance of promotion to the Reporters, the Hon. Speaker has written to Government to create one post of Chief Reporter and one post of Editor of Debates in higher scales. The matter is being pursued with the Government and is under its consideration." The respondents further aver that "keeping in view the undertaking given by the Reporters that if their pay scale is revised equal to that of Superintendent Grade-I/Private Secretary then they would not claim promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I, has formulated a new policy for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I in which the Reporters have been excluded." On these premises, the claim of the petitioners has been contested.