High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Jagdeep Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - RA-241-2001  RD-P&H 6765 (8 September 2006)
CWP No. 15532 of 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RA 241 of 2001
in CWP No. 15532 of 1994
DATE OF DECISION : 15.9.2006.
Jagdeep Singh and others
State of Haryana and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
PRESENT: M.RK Malik, Advocate for the non applicant- petitioners.
Mr.Harish Rathee,Sr.DAG, Haryana for applicant- respondents.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. In our view order dated 13.8.1999 passed by this court, which is the subject matter of review application, proceeds on two sound principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of K.C.Hooda vs. State of Haryana (CWP No. 1380 of 1998 decided on 2.12.1998). The learned State counsel in the penultimate para had conceded that the matter in the instant petition was covered by the judgment in K.C.Hooda's case (supra) and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of that judgment. The principles on which the judgment apparently proceeds are - that the pay scale of feeder post cannot be lower than the promotional post. It is the admitted position that RA 241 of 2001 in - 2-
CWP No. 15532 of 1994
the post of Road Inspector is a feeder post for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in the applicant-respondent Department. The pay scale of Road Inspector was Rs.1400-2600, whereas, the pay Scale of Junior Engineer was Rs.1400-2300. The second principle followed in K.C.Hooda,s case (supra) was that - the anomaly in the pay scale has to be removed from the date of its revision and not from a subsequent date when the anomaly in fact has been removed. We are of the view that the instant case is not a case of revision of pay scale but it is a case of removal of anomaly on account of the fact that the feeder post carried more pay scale than that of the promotional post. The so called concession given by the learned State counsel in the instant judgment under review, in our opinion, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the order does not call for any review.
The aforementioned principles have been correctly applied in the order dated 13.8.1999 and ,therefore, even on merits the result shall not be different than the one recorded in the order. Therefore, there is no merit in the review application and the same is dismissed.
( M.M.KUMAR )
September 15 ,2006 ( M.M.S.BEDI )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.