IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 Date of Decision: 26.08.2025 NARINDER PAL SINGH ...Petitioner Versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, (through V.C.)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Senior Panel Counsel,(Through V.C.)

with Ms. Isha Bhukal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 24.12.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, the claim of the petitioner that while working on the post of Guide with the Government Museum and Art Gallery, Sector 10, Chandigarh, the said post got merged with the cadre of Clerk and the benefit of pay-scale of the post of Guider-cum-Clerk has been declined and that too, without appreciating the actual facts, which is causing him prejudice.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the instructions dated 15.04.1991 was issued for the merger of the isolated category of posts with the ministerial posts so as to give the employees further opportunity to grow in the service career but the benefits were not given, though after the decision of the Chandigarh Administration, even the Government Museum and Art Gallery, Sector 10, Chandigarh, vide order dated 17.01.2002 redesignated the post held by the petitioner as Guide- cum-Clerk. Learned counsel submits that despite claiming the benefits after redesignation in the cadre of Clerk as Guide-cum-Clerk, the same were being not extended for the reasons best know to the respondents and the petitioner approached the Tribunal for the grant of benefits of the parity of pay-scale by treating him as member of the cadre of Clerk after the post of Guide was merged into the said cadre of Clerk, but the Chandigarh Administration retracted its stand by the order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-3) that no such merger or demerger took place of the cadre of Guide with that of the Clerk and the original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2018 (Annexure P-4) giving liberty to challenge the order dated 07.12.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once, all the required process was completed qua the merger of the post of Guide with that of Clerk, the same could not have been retracted and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.12.2018 be set aside and the petitioner be treated as a part of the cadre of Clerk for all intents and purposes from the date he joined the post of Guide with further promotion in the cadre.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the post of Guide was redesignated as the post of Guide-cum-Clerk, but the same was never made part of the cadre of Clerk as the rules governing the service were never amended so as to include the post of Guide in the cadre of Clerk at any given point of time and keeping in view the clarification given by the Chandigarh Administration on 07.12.2018, there was no merger of the cadre of Guide with that of Clerk, the claim being raised by the petitioner that he is to be treated to be as a part of cadre of Clerk is incorrect. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal passed the order after appreciating the issue and gave the liberty that in case the petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 07.12.2018, he can avail the appropriate remedy but no such remedy has been availed by the petitioner hence, the present claim of the petitioner that he should be treated as part of the cadre of Clerk, may be declined.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

5. The claim of the petitioner that the post of G