Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Kishori Lal Sandhu v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Nati - CWP-12328-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 7205 (14 September 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


C.W.P. No.12328 of 2006


Date of decision: 10.8.2006

Kishori Lal Sandhu



The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Fertilizers Limited and others



Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Nijjar

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron

Present: Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.


S.S. Saron, J.

The petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 24.1.2006 (Annexure-P.7) whereby his claim as stated in the legal notice sent by him has been considered and declined. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of the order dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure-P.7/A) whereby his request for removal of anomaly regarding fixation of his pay vis-a-vis his junior has been considered and not acceded to. Accordingly, directions are sought for promoting the petitioner w.e.f. 1.2.2002 i.e. the date when his junior Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) was promoted and also for reconsideration of the re- fixation of his basic pay in view of the anomaly therein.

The petitioner is presently working as Senior Technician in the Chemical Control Department of the National Fertilizer Limited, Nangal. He C.W.P. No.12328/2006


was initially selected as a Trainee on 2.4.1995 on which date Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) also joined. The petitioner was absorbed as Technician Grade-III w.e.f. 6.2.1996 along with Surjit Singh (respondent No.4). He was promoted as Technician Grade-II w.e.f. 6.8.1997 along with respondent No.4. His next promotion was of Technician Grade-I w.e.f. 6.8.1998 after completion of one year service as Technician Grade-II. Respondent No.4 was promoted along with the petitioner. The petitioner was called for interview for the post of Senior Technician along with his two other colleagues, namely, Vipan Kumar and Surjit Singh (respondent No.4). Vipan Kumar and Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) have been promoted whereas petitioner has not been promoted even though the petitioner is senior to Surjit Singh (respondent No.4). Against the said promotions, the petitioner represented and had even approached this Court. On directions of this Court his representation has been considered and declined vide impugned order dated 24.1.2006 (Annexure-P.7) which is assailed. The petitioner had also approached the management of National Fertilizers Limited complaining against the anomaly in the fixation of his basic pay. He made a reference to the case of Shri Surinder Mohan Dhawan (`S.M. Dhawan' for short) his co- employee who was drawing more basic pay than the petitioner even though the date of placement i.e. 1.1.2004 of both the employees in the present grade was the same. In fact, in the immediate preceding grade, the petitioner had been promoted about two years before S.M. Dhawan was promoted.

However, the management of National Fertilizers Limited has by order dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure-P.7/A) not acceded to the request of the petitioner as the same, it is stated, is not covered under the extant rules. The said order is C.W.P. No.12328/2006


also assailed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was throughout senior to Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) and, therefore, he had a prior right of promotion. Besides, being eligible in every respect, it is stated that in any case the petitioner being a member of the Scheduled Castes (SC) category was liable to be promoted on the post falling vacant on 31.12.2001 with the retirement of Meet Singh, a member of the SC category. The respondents, it is contended, have failed to explain as to how Meet Singh was plotted at point No.1 in the Unreserved Category when he was a member of the SC category. It is also contended that the management of National Fertilizers Limited resorted to diversification of vacancies for trying to fill-up the vacancies from other departments to the prejudice of the petitioner. The management, it is alleged, has not applied the roster system for promoting the members of the SC category. It is also contended that the request of the petitioner for re-fixation of his basic pay has wrongly been denied. He has referred to the comparison chart of basic pay of the petitioner and S.M. Dhawan and on the basis of the same, it is contended that the anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioner is liable to be removed by re-fixing his basic pay.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same.

The claim of the petitioner for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Technician has been considered in detail by a speaking order dated 24.1.2006 (Annexure-P.7). The contentions raised by the petitioner have been considered. It is recorded that though the petitioner and Surjit Singh C.W.P. No.12328/2006


(respondent No.4) were appointed Technician Grade-III (Lab.) on successful completion of apprenticeship training of one year w.e.f. 6.2.1996 and thereafter were promoted as Technician Grade-II (Lab.) w.e.f. 6.8.1997 and Technician Grade-I (Lab.) w.e.f. 6.8.1998, however, Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) was senior to the petitioner as per panel drawn by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). For considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Technician, he was called for interview on 29.1.2002.

This was a merit post wherein the petitioner was given due opportunity to compete with other eligible candidates. The DPC after considering the merits of each candidate recommended the name of S/Shri Vipan Kumar and Surjit Singh (respondent No.4), who were senior to the petitioner in order of merit. The DPC did not recommend the name of the petitioner on merit and consequently Surjit Singh Rawat (respondent No.4) was promoted w.e.f.

1.1.2002. As regards Meet Singh, it is stated that he is a member of the SC category and he retired on 31.12.2001. It is stated that Meet Singh was plotted at point No.1 meant for unreserved category and he was holding the post of unreserved category and this post, when it fell vacant, was meant for unreserved category. In order to fill the said post the candidature of the petitioner was also considered and he was given due and proper opportunity to compete with others by the DPC which interviewed them. His name was, however, not cleared by the DPC for promotion. A reference is also made to the Cluster Based New Promotion Policy for warders which was made effective from 1.1.2004. In terms of the said policy the employees who were in a particular cadre and had completed four years of service at the level of Operator/Technician Grade-I and were meeting grade to grade specifications C.W.P. No.12328/2006


for the post of Senior Operator/Senior Technician were considered for promotion irrespective of vacancy at that level. The said scheme provides that such of the employees who are placed in the selection grade scale and meeting grade to grade specifications would be regularized in their selection grade scales. The petitioner was given the benefit of the said scheme as there was no requirement of vacancy on introduction of the said scheme. As regards diversification of employees from Production Department to Chemical Control Wing it was clarified that the employees who were diversified were at the level of Technician Grade-IV to Grade-I (selection grade) and no diversification was done at the level of Senior Technician.

Insofar as the anomaly consequent upon wage revision w.e.f. 1.1.1997 is concerned it has been pointed out that S.M. Dhawan was earlier working in Production Department but was diversified to Chemical Control Wing on 19.5.1999. Earlier to that S.M. Dhawan was promoted as Operator Grade-II

8000. On that day the petitioner was Technician Grade-III (Lab.) and was drawing Rs.4750/- in the scale of Rs.4650-100-6550. S.M. Dhawan was getting salary in different scale on account of his promotion on 20.2.1997.

On the date of diversification to Chemical Control Wing on 19.5.1999, S.M.

Dhawan was drawing Rs.5600/- in the said scale whereas the petitioner was drawing Rs.5550/- in the scale of Rs.5550-160-8190. S.M. Dhawan was also drawing higher pay even in the pre-promoted scale. On this account there was found to be no anomaly in the pay of the petitioner/pay fixation as had been claimed.

In the afore-noticed circumstances, all the claims have been duly C.W.P. No.12328/2006


considered and declined by the Department. The petitioner has not been able to show as to how the reasoning declining his claims is unreasonable or erroneous. Even otherwise this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction is not to sit in appeal over the findings and conclusions reached at by the competent authority. The petitioner has not shown any illegality or irregularity in the passing of the impugned orders nor has shown the violation of any legally enforceable statutory right. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

(S.S. Nijjar)


August 10, 2006. (S.S. Saron)




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 |

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