A senior general category employee reaching the same post as a junior from a reserved category is entitled to equal pay, reaffirming fairness and equality mandates under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-9) vide which respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior Scheduled Caste category employee namely Raghubir Singh qua the post of Revenue Clerk and Zilledar with a further prayer to issue directions to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner (Senior General Employee) by stepping up his pay at par with the pay of Sh. Raghbir Singh (Junior Schedule Caste Category Employee) on the post of Zilledar, in view of ‘catch-up rule’, with all consequential benefits including 18% interest on arrears.

2. Brief Facts

The petitioner, a general category employee, was initially appointed as Irrigation Booking Clerk/Canal Patwari on 18.09.1974 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Revenue Clerk in 1979, as Revenue Clerk in 1996, and as Zilledar in 2010.

Another employee, Sh. Raghubir Singh, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, entered service later on 18.11.1974 but was promoted earlier on account of reservation, and reached the posts of Assistant Revenue Clerk in 1979, Revenue Clerk in 1982, and Zilledar in 1992. Both the petitioner and Sh. Raghubir Singh ultimately retired as Zilledars in 2012.

Relying upon the principle laid down in Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab 1996(2) SCT 278 , and the decision of this Court in Charan Dass v. State of Haryana CWP No. 13889 of 2006, followed by Government instructions dated 05.03.2009, the petitioner represented for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior on the ground that he had caught up with him on the post of Zilledar.

The petitioner’s claim was, however, rejected vide order dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-9), primarily on the ground that he had not regained his seniority as Revenue Clerk over and above Sh. Raghubir Singh, and that no seniority list of Zilledars had been prepared. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court. Hence, this petition.

3. Contentions

On behalf of Petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, though initially senior, was superseded in earlier promotions owing to reservation policy. However, once both the petitioner and his junior Sh.Raghubir Singh reached the same post of Zilledar in 2010, the principle of “catch-up rule” became applicable.

It is further argued that under the law declared by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab (supra) and this court in Charan Dass v. State of Haryana (supra), as well as Government instructions dated 05.03.2009 issued subsequent to the same, a senior general category employee is entitled to stepping up of pay at par with his junior from the reserved category, once they occupy the same post. The denial of such benefit, according to the petitioner, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the order dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-9) rejecting his claim is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

On behalf of Respondents

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner cannot claim parity with Sh. Raghubir Singh since, after his promotion to the post of Revenue Clerk in 1982, Sh. Raghubir Singh remained senior to the petitioner in the service hierarchy. It is argued that the petitioner never regained his seniority as Revenue Clerk over Sh. Raghubir Singh, and, therefore, the benefit of the “catch-up rule” is not available. The respondents further submit that no seniority list of Zilledars was prepared, and in absence of such senior