An employee who opts for a specific cadre cannot claim benefits accruing from both prior and new roles, effectively barred from receiving increments from both streams due to principles of estoppel.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to the respondents to correctly fix pay of the petitioner by removing the anomaly on account of which petitioner remained underpaid despite appointed on the higher position.

2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner through proper channel on 25.07.1990 entered into service of respondent as Assistant (Technical). On 07.10.1993, the petitioner was posted as Data Entry Operator. On 08.11.2000, the petitioner, on the basis of merit determined among Class-III employees, was chosen and thereafter posted as Development Officer (for short 'DO') on probation. The petitioner remained on probation from 15.11.2000 to 14.11.2001. The petitioner was confirmed as DO on 07.12.2001. The pay of the petitioner was protected while appointing him as DO on probation. The petitioner was granted increment which accrued on 01.01.2001 as Clerk, however, he was not granted increment which would have accrued as Clerk on 01.01.2002. As a DO, increment accrued to the petitioner on 01.04.2002, however, he was not granted because he had not completed 12 months' service as DO. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was granted increment on 01.01.2001 but no increment was granted on 01.01.2002 because he was serving as DO at that point of time and he was not granted increment on 01.04.2002 because had not complete 12 months' as DO. Thus, petitioner on 01.01.2002 as well as 01.04.2002 did not get increment either as Clerk or as DO.

3. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner was neither granted increment on 01.01.2002 nor on 01.04.2002 which has resulted into anomaly. The petitioner was appointed as DO which is a Grade-II post, whereas 'Clerk' falls in Class-III post. Appointment as DO was certainly a promotional post thus, object of seeking promotion stood defeated by not granting increment either as Clerk or DO.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment dated 12.10.1994 passed by this Court in Sunder Lal Jain and Others v. State of Haryana and Others; CWP No.4176 of 1988 and Single Bench judgment dated 19.08.2010 passed by this Court in Satish Kumar v. The Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and Others; CWP No.4980 of 2009.

5. Per contra, Mr. Talwar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that appointment of petitioner as DO was not a promotional post. It was mere conversion of clerical staff to development staff. The respondent-corporation vide letter dated 29.09.1998 had framed policy for conversion of clerical staff into development staff. As a DO, an employee gets number of emoluments/incentives which are not available to clerical staff. The question of remuneration on account of conversion from Clerical Cadre to Development Officer was duly addressed in Paragraph 6 of the communication dated 29.09.1998. The petitioner had accepted terms and conditions of communication dated 29.09.1998, thus, he cannot claim benefit of both streams i.e. Clerical as well as Development cadre. The petitioner was rightly denied benefit of increment on 01.04.2002 because he has not completed 12 months' period for getting increment. Paragraph 13 of notification dated 29.04.1976 as amended, issued