P.V. AJAY KUMAR & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

P.V. Ajay Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors - CWP-4846-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2066 (28 March 2006)

CWP NO.4846 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.4846 OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 28.3.2006

P.V. Ajay Kumar and others ....Petitioners.

Versus

Union of India and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. PATWALIA

PRESENT: Mr.Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

The grievance of the petitioners is that certain Havildar/CM's have been sent for taking the test, so as to be deputed to a course, whereas the petitioners, who are also Havildars, have been left out. The petitioners claim superiority over the Havildars who have been deputed for the test on account of their continuity in service. In order to appreciate the controversy raised by the petitioners, it would be pertinent to mention that the petitiones were originally inducted into the service of the respondents as Naik/CM. The post of Havildar/CM is admittedly a post higher than the post of Naik/CM, inasmuch as the post of Havildar/CM was enjoying a higher pay scale viz. the post of Naik/CM. However, the cadres of Naik/CM and Havildar/CM were merged in a common cadre of Havildar/CM. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the service rendered by the petitioners as Naik/CM should also be CWP NO.4846 OF 2006 2

taken into consideration to determine their inter se seniority with persons initially inducted into the service of the respondents as Havildar/CM.

It is not possible to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. When two cadres are merged, the cadre which enjoys a higher pay scale has en mass has to be placed above the cadre which is placed in a lower pay scale, for determination of inter se seniority. It is, therefore, not possible for us to determine seniority in the merged care by taking into consideration the continuous length of service rendered by the petitioners from the dates they were inducted into the service of the respondents as Naik/CM. For the aforesaid reason, we find no justification in the claim of the petitioners in so far as their superiority over the persons deputed for the test in terms of the order dated 3.3.2006 (Annexure P7) is concerned.

No merit. Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( P.S. Patwalia )

March 28, 2006. Judge

vig

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.