Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.
Jai Narain Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CM-13095-CWP of 2022 IN/AND CWP-27577 of 2017
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
Under Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2016, a senior employee can have their pay stepped up to match a junior's salary despite prior financial upgradations.
Headnote:(A) Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2016 - Rule 12 - Claim for stepping up of pay - Petitioner, a promoted clerk, sought equal pay with junior direct recruit despite having received three financial upgradations - Court held that stepping up of pay is permissible under Rule 12 even after three upgradations if a junior employee is earning more - Petitioner entitled to pay adjustment effective from 01.01.2016. (Paras 8-10, 14)
(B) Interest on delayed payment - Petitioner entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on arrears from 01.01.2016 until retirement, as per settled law. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as a Waterman in 1975 and promoted to Clerk in 1996, claimed stepping up of his pay to match that of junior Manoj Kumar, who was appointed later but earned a higher salary.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to stepping up of his pay to match that of his junior from 01.01.2016, along with revised pension benefits and interest on arrears.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to stepping up of pay despite having received three financial upgradations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the specific provisions of the 2016 ACP Rules allow for stepping up of pay regardless of prior financial upgradations if a junior employee earns more.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) -
CM-13095-CWP-2022
As prayed for, application is allowed.
Replication to the written statement filed on the behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 is taken on record.
Main Case
In the present petition, the claim which is being raised by the petitioner is that the Petitioner is entitled for the grant of benefit of step up of his pay equivalent to that of his direct recruit junior namely, Manoj Kumar, who was appointed in the cadre of clerk after the Petitioner but was drawing higher salary than the Petitioner.
2. As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, Petitioner was initially appointed on Class-IV post of Waterman on 02.05.1975. The petitioner was further promoted as Clerk on 24.05.1996. It has been further mentioned that one Manoj Kumar, who was directly recruited on 27.12.1996 in the cadre of clerk i.e. after the Petitioner was promoted as clerk, was drawing higher salary than the Petitioner, details of the salary being drawn by the Petitioner as well as said Manoj Kumar have been depicted in para-13 of the present writ petition.
3. A bare perusal of para-13 of the writ petition would show that starting from 04.03.2014 onwards, the said Manoj Kumar was getting higher pay than the Petitioner despite being junior in the cadre of clerk. Prayer of the Petitioner is that his pay should be stepped up equivalent to the said Manoj Kumar, which benefit is not being extended to the Petitioner by the respondents and the said action of the Respondents is under challenge in the present petition.
4. After notice of motion, the Respondents have filed reply, wherein, the facts which have been mentioned in the present petition are conceded but it has been submitted that once the Petitioner had already been granted three financial upgradations in his service career, which is the only benefit available under ACP Rules hence, no further financial upgradation can be granted to the Petitioner and the claim of the Petitioner for stepping up of his pay equivalent to the Manoj Kumar is not admissible.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. The facts which have been mentioned hereinbefore are not in dispute. It is a conceded position qua facts that Petitioner has already been granted three financial upgradations during his service carrier and also that Manoj Kumar is junior to the Petitioner but was drawing higher salary as compared to the Petitioner.
7. The only question which arises for determination of this Court is as to whether even after getting three financial upgradations in the service career, the Petitioner is entitled for the benefit of stepping up of his pay equivalent to that of Manoj Kumar, who was directly recruited after the petitioner in the cadre of clerk as the said junior employee is concededly drawing higher salary than the Petitioner since 04.03.2014 onwards i.e. much prior to the date the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired.
8. For adjudicating the said dispute, Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules need to be adverted. The Petitioner has attached Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2016 which rules came into operation from 01.01.2016. Rule 12 of the said rules deals with the admissibility of stepping up of pay in certain cases, which clause is reproduced as under:-
"12. Admissibility of stepping up in certain cases:-
If the service rules provide for or circumstances warrant filling up of a post through direct recruitment as well as through promotion, benefit of stepping up of ACP level any/or pay shall be admissible to the senior employee appointed by promotion on the same post on which the junior direct recruit Government employee is drawing higher ACP level. The condition of maximum three financial upgradations shall not be a bar. However, conditional of satisfactory record and qualification etc. shall be fulfilled for the purpose of this rule.
