IQBAL SINGH SUFI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the proviso to Rule 1. 9 (b) of the Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1981, which provides that persons working on posts in a higher scale shall be deemed to be senior to those in lower scales of pay, ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?. This is the short question which falls for the consideration. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a 'manufacturing Chemist Grade-B' in the Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Batala, on November 17, 1965. In 1980, an apex society namely the Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills (for short the 'sugar Fed') was constituted. In 1981, the Common Cadre Rules were promul- gated. Rule 1. 9 (b) related to the determination of seniority. In pursuance to the Rules, a tentative seniority list was circulated on March 31, 1985. The petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 1 in this list. However, after some time a revised seniority list was issued. The petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 15. On the basis of inter se position as reflected in the revised seniority list, certain persons were promoted. Aggrieved by the revision of the seniority and the promotion of respondents 3 to 5, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He alleges that the inter se seniority of all the Chemists borne on the cadre has to be determined on the basis of continuous length of service. The fact that some were working in a higher scale of pay which was commonly known as Grade A-1 while others like the petitioners were working in lower scale of pay which was commonly known as Grade-B, was of no consequence. The two cadres having been merged, they should be deemed to be at par and no differential treatment should have been accorded to the incumbents of the two cadres on the basis of the pay scale alone. On this basis, the petitioner prays that respondents. 3 to 5 be declared junior to him and the orders of their promotion be set aside.

(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard. The short question, as already noticed, relates to the validity of the proviso to Rule 1. 9 (b ). It is useful to extract the relevant provision. It reads as under:" 1. 9 (b) The seniority of employees who are taken on common Cadre under the provisions of these rules shall be determined in a particular category on the basis of their qualified length of service on the post held at the time of enforcement of these, rules. Provided that the employees working in higher grade just before the enforcement of those rules shall be deemed to be senior to the employees working in lower grade in the same category. The qualified length of service shall include the continuous officiating period of service on the post in the category".