JAI KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to consider his claim for promotion as Sub Divisional Engineer on ad hoc/regular basis without taking into consideration the departmental proceedings pending against him and to allow him to work as Sub Divisional Engineer and also to pay him salary and allowances in the pay-scales of Rs. 940-2000 (revised to Rs. 2,000-3,500/-).

(2.) The petitioner joined service as Junior Engineer in the year 1971 on his appointment as such in the Public Works Department. He was promoted as ad hoc Sub Divisional Engineer vide order (Anncxure P-1) dated 28.12.1981 issued under Rule 6(4) of the Punjab Service on Engineers Class-II P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 (for short, the 1965 Rules) from the category of Junior Engineers having qualification of A.M.I.E./degree-holder because he has passed A.M.I.E. during the course of service. After about three years, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer to that of Junior Engineer. The petitioner represented against his reversion vide Annexure P-6. On a consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the Commissioner and Secretary directed the Engineer-in-Chief to reconsider the representation of the petitioner and sent his opinion/proposal. Thereafter, vide order (Annexure P-8) dated 31.7.1987, the petitioner was assigned the charge of the post of Sub Divisional Engineer but was paid salary in the pay-scale of the post of Junior Engineer. He once again submitted representation dated 15/17.12.1987 and claimed promotion as Sub Divisional Engineer from the date his juniors have been promoted/continucd. The Government rejected his representation vide order (Annexure P-10) dated 30.9.1988.

(3.) In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 15.2.1989 for initiation of the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and made representation for dropping of the same. As on the date of filing of the writ petition, the charge- sheet was pending against the petitioner. The petitioner says that denial of promotion to him is highly arbitrary and unjustified and that he had been discriminated by the respondents.