IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.20154 of 2002 Date of Decision:- 25.04.2011 Hari Chand ....Petitioner(s) vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rohit Kumar, Advocate for Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate, for the respondent. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing order dated 23.10.2002 (Annexure P-12) vide which representation of the petitoner to step up his pay equal to that of his juniors has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 3.5.1963 and thereafter promoted as an Assistant on 20.3.1972, Sr. Assistant on 1.5.1981, Superintendent Grade-II on 12.5.1989 with deemed date as 27.10.1987 and Superintendent Grade-I on 25.11.1992 and till his date of retirement, he continued as such. His junior Balwant Singh Virk, was appointed on 29.3.1965; thereafter, promoted as Assistant on 26.3.1974, Sr.Assistant on 28.4.1982, Superintendent Grade II on 5.6.1993 and Superintendent Grade I on 19.3.1999. His pay has been fixed in the higher scale than the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would be entitled to the stepping up of his pay equal to C.W.P.No.20154 of 2002 -2- that of his junior Balwant Singh Virk. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9943 of 1995 High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Bahadur Singh Batta, decided on 25.4.2001 (Annexure P-14) wherein the respondent who was similarly placed as the petitioner in this case and was senior to Balwant Singh Virk had been granted the benefit of stepping up of his pay equivalent to that of Balwant Singh Virk who was junior to him. He accordingly prays for the acceptance of the writ petitoin and setting aside of the impugned order dated 23.10.2002 (Annexure P-12). On the other hand, the stand of the High Court is that although the seniority of the petitioner over and above Balwant Singh Virk has been admitted but it has been stated in the reply that the grant of selection grade was based on the service record and not merely on the basis of seniority. Since the petitioner was awarded with penalty of stoppage of one increment in the year 1963 and then another in the year 1971 with a further penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in the year 1976 besides other penalties of censure and warning, he would not be entitled to the grant of selection grade which was due to him with effect from 1.1.1978 from which his junior Balwant Singh Virk was granted. Instead the petitioner was granted this grade with effect from 1.5.1981 as per the instructions. This fact has not been specifically denied by the petitioner in the replication filed by him. What has been stated in the replication is only admitting the fact that there was indeed penalty imposed for stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in the year 1976, but there is no denial with regard to the earlier penalties where the increments were stopped in the years C.W.P.No.20154 of 2002 -3- 1963 and 1971 without cumulative effect. That being the position with regard to the service record of the petitioner, the claim as made by him cannot be granted. The claim for grant of selection grade is based on the service record which in the light of the reply filed by the respondents, which has not been specifically controverted by the petitioner, shows that the record of the petitioner is not satisfactory which would have entitled him to the grant of selection grade from the date his junior Balwant Singh Virk was granted the said selection grade. In view of the above, order dated 23.10.2002 (Annexure P-12) passed by the High Court rejecting his representation is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court. Civil writ petition is accordingly dismissed. April 25, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE