IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 18285 of 1991 Date of Decision: 20.1.2010. Thakur Dutt --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 19.11.1991, whereby seniority of the private respondents has been fixed above him. The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 14.12.1970 under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. He was permanently absorbed as Constable (executive clerk) in the year 1973. Private respondents were also appointed as Constable (executive clerk). In the seniority list notified at the relevant time petitioner was shown at Sr. No.6, whereas private respondents Mr. Mohinder Singh, respondent no.3 and Mr. Deep Chand-respondent no.4 were shown at Sr. Nos. 7 and 34 respectively. Name of respondent no.5 Mange Ram was not shown in the seniority list. The petitioner was allowed special allowance of Rs. 20/- w.e.f. 26.1.1973. Petitioner was promoted as Head Constable with special pay of Rs. 20/- on 9.4.1974. At the relevant time the private respondents were not even permanently absorbed as Head Constables. Private respondents were, however, promoted as Head Constables on 13.9.1975, 12.12.1976 and 2.8.1977 respectively in the Hisar Range on bifurcation of the Ambala Range. Another seniority list of Head CWP. No. 18285 of 1991 -2- Constables was notified in which the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.7, whereas private respondents were shown at Sr. Nos. 13,15 and 17 respectively. In the year 1979 another range namely the Gurgaon Range was created. Those who were working in the Gurgaon Range were granted special pay of Rs. 30/-. On the basis of the grant of special pay of Rs. 30/- the seniority of the private respondents was fixed over and above the petitioner vide the impugned order. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present petition. According to the respondents the seniority is to be reckoned on the basis of withdrawal of special pay. This position is contrary to the rule of seniority i.e. Rule 12.2 of the Punjab Police Rules which inter alia provides the determination of seniority of the lower subordinates from the date of appointment. This rule clearly provides seniority on the basis of length of service. Admittedly, the petitioner was above in the merit than the private respondents. The grant of special pay for serving in a particular district/range cannot be made basis for the determination of the seniority which is de-hors the rule. The impugned order is, thus, violative of Rule 12.2 and is liable to be quashed. This petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed and it is directed that the petitioner be placed above the private respondents in the seniority and paid consequential benefits, if any. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 20.1.2010. lucky