The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking inclusion of Work Shop Supervisors as a feeder cadre for functional promotion to Junior Engineer. The Court held the Assured Career Progression Rules sufficed to break career stagnation and rejected the demand for functional promotion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18569 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 15, 2011
Hari Pal
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.
M.M.KUMAR, J.
CWP No. 18569 of 2010 -2-
Engineer. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 4.8.2009 has issued directions to the respondents to consider the prayer made by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, on 26.3.2010 (Annexure P-14), respondent No.2Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana has passed an order stating that the respondent-State had framed Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 (for brevity ' the 2008 Rules') in order to remove stagnation in service. The aforesaid Rules/Scheme has been framed to ensure that all Government servants working in the State of Haryana whose cadre are not covered by any Career Progression during the entire service may get at least three financial up-gradations. The scheme ensures that no Government servant stagnates without any financial up-gradation for more than 10 years unless he has availed three financial up-gradation in his career. The competent authority for Assured Career Progression Scales is to grant them up-gradations of completion on 10, 20 and 30 years regular/satisfactory service in terms of 2008 Rules. The aforesaid order dated 26.3.2010 has now been challenged in the instant petition by urging that functional promotion for one step should also be given instead of merely granting financial upgradation.
CWP No. 18569 of 2010 -3-
for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer especially when they are not to suffer any monetary loss. According to the written statement, under Rule 9 read with Appendix B of the 1998 Rules only Special Foreman and Foreman Miscellaneous are entitled for appointment by promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and there is 10% quota provided by Rule 9 (i) for the aforesaid two feeder cadres. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner to include the Work Shop Supervisor as a feeder cadre has been declined and reliance has been placed on the 2008 Rules.
CWP No. 18569 of 2010 -4-
higher responsibility. There is no mandatory provision nor any such provision has been cited before us. The argument with regard to discrimination has also failed to impress us because equity can be only amongst equal and Work Shop Supervisors are not equal to Foreman Heavy Plant in the Mechanical Department itself. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for functional promotion cannot be accepted. The petition is wholly without merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE
( T.P.S. MANN ) March 15, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Work Shop Supervisors should be included as a feeder cadre for functional promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in lieu of financial upgradation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
O.Z. Hussain v. Union of IndiaReferred¶20
O.Z.Hussain v. Union of India, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. BhattReferred¶20
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another v. K.G.S.Bhatt and another, (1989) 4 SCC 635 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hari Pal
State of Haryana
M.M. Kumar
T.P.S. Mann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
