IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6626 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.1.2010. Roop Chand Khichi --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner initially joined as Clerk on 17.8.1971. He was promoted as Assistant on 13.5.1978 and later as Taxation Inspector w.e.f. 30.7.1985 vide order dated 28.9.2004. The petitioner has stated that three direct recruits namely S/Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Mandeep Arora and Rohit Kumar, who were recruited to the post of Taxation Inspector by direct appointment on 24.9.1986, 3.2.1987 and 2.11.1988 respectively, have been granted the ACP scale on completion of their 10 years and 20 years service w.e.f. 1.3.2007. It is stated that these three persons have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/-. The petitioner is claiming that he should also be placed in the ACP scale as granted to the aforesaid three persons. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner has already been granted two promotions from the date of joining of service and thus, he is not entitled to the benefit of 1st and 2nd ACP. However, 3rd ACP benefit has been granted to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the persons junior to the petitioner CWP. No. 6626 of 2009 -2- are in higher pay scale and are drawing more salary than the petitioner and thus the petitioner is also entitled to the higher scale. However, in the petition, petitioner is claiming higher scale and not the salary at par with his juniors. Petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court reported as 2001 (1) RSJ 205 titled as Suraj Bhan and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, in which following observations have been made:- “ 7. To say that because they were promotees and, therefore, they were given a lower scale, indeed, would not be correct. It it was a case of fixation of pay and some differences had arisen in fixation of the pay of the junior, the things would be different. But the question therein is that merely because the petitioners were promotees, they cannot be given lesser pay scale. Supreme Court in the case of Kamlakar and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1999 (3) Recent Services Judgements 419, was concerned with a similar situation where some relief was given to the direct recruits and not to the promotees. The Supreme Court held that birth marks have no relevance and promotees were entitled to all the benefits that were granted to similarly situated other persons. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in concluding that the petitioners could not be discriminated in the matter of pay scale merely because they were promotees. Since, it was not a case of fixation of pay, thus, they were entitled to the same pay scale as the direct recruits.” I have considered the aforesaid judgement as also the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that the ACP is in lieu of the promotion. The petitioner has already got two promotions and thus was not entitled to the 1st and 2nd ACP benefit. The 3rd ACP benefit has already been granted to the petitioner. However, if, any junior is drawing more salary than the CWP. No. 6626 of 2009 -3- petitioner, then, the case of the petitioner is required to be examined. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for upgradation of his salary at par with his juniors. If, the petitioner is found to be entitled to any such benefit, the same may be released in his favour within a period of four months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.1.2010. lucky