KAILASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted benefit of stepping up of his pay at par with his junior Shri Haroop Singh by an order dated 23.12.2009. That benefit has been withdrawn on the plea that advice was received from the RSO/Accounts Officer, that while checking the case, it was found that the petitioner had been given wrong benefit and was not entitled to stepping up his pay at par with his junior because the petitioner was appointed as a Helper in Group 'D' service whereas his so called junior had been directly recruited as Assistant Radiator Repairer in Group 'C'. The cadre being different, there could be no comparison. On this pretext, the benefit was withdrawn by the impugned order dated 8.1.2013 (P-5) against which the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client was appointed in Group D service in the year 1972 and thereafter earned promotion and ultimately he was promoted to a Group C post on 24.6.1977. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Fitter on this date. Shri Haroop Singh was a direct recruit to Group C post when he was appointed as an Assistant Radiator Repairer on 16.4.1981. He submits that the posts of Assistant Fitter and Assistant Radiator Repairer fall in Group C service and are governed by the provisions of the Haryana Transport Department (Group C) Haryana Roadways Service Rules. It is the submission of Mr. Sabherwal, learned counsel that these posts are equivalent technical posts carrying the same pay scale, and therefore, it is incorrect that their cases can be separated for the reasoning that they belong to separate cadre. Notwithstanding, that the comparison in the impugned order was based on the fallacious reasoning that the petitioner belongs to Group D and Haroop Singh belongs to Group C.

(3.) Mr.Sabherwal points out to a seniority list of Fitters (P-6) in which the name of Haroop Singh is mentioned at Sr.No.4. It is clearly recorded therein that Haroop Singh was appointed as an Assistant Radiator- Assistant Fitter on 20.10.1987 and in the adjoining column, his date of promotion as Assistant Fitter is recorded as 20.10.1987 and as Fitter on 1.5.1999. There is sufficient material on record to suggest that Haroop Singh was also Assistant Fitter at the relevant time, but was junior to the petitioner in the cadre. If Haroop Singh had been granted the benefit of stepping up of his pay based on length of service determined from the date of his appointment in Group C, then the order which granted stepping up of pay to the petitioner to bring his pay at par with his junior was a legal and valid order and was also in conformity with the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3250 of 2006 and connected appeals decided on 2.8.2006 on the issue of stepping up of pay in the same way in the respondent-State itself. The judgment has been placed on record as P- 1. The Supreme Court observed as under:-