SARDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 9.11.2011, Annexure P4, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Gurgaon Circle PWD B&R Branch, Gurgaon, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Road Inspector notionally w.e.f. 15.3.2005 against a reserved quota post.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.11.2011, Annexure P4, to the extent that pay and allowances for the post of Road Inspector have been made admissible only w.e.f. 23.1.2009 and not w.e.f. 15.3.2005.

(3.) Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition and as would emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No.2377 of 2006 praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent-Authorities to consider his case for promotion to the post of Road Inspector against the roster point reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates as per reservation policy. Such writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 31.3.2008 with directions having been issued to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Road Inspector against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste category as per relevant rules and regulations and as per petitioner's eligibility. Since the directions issued by this Court were not being complied with, petitioner initiated contempt proceedings and whereupon an order was passed promoting the petitioner as Road Inspector w.e.f. 19.1.2009. The petitioner then preferred Civil Writ Petition No.2320 of 2011 claiming promotion to the post of Road Inspector w.e.f. 15.3.2005 instead i.e. with effect from the date the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category at the roster point had fallen vacant. Such claim was put forth on the strength of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in RK Sabharwal RK Sabharwal v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 1371, Civil State of Punjab and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 1371 Writ Petition No.2320 of 2011 was disposed of on 29.7.2011 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the relevant policy instructions as also law laid down by the Supreme Court in RK Sabharwal's RK Sabharwal's RK Sabharwal's case .