Civil Writ Petition No. 4083 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4083 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.1.2011. Ram Dhari Dahiya ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover Present:- Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. His grievance is that he has been working as a Science Master with the Education Department since 1976 and was due to attain his age of superannuation on 31st July 2008. The petitioner was conferred with the “State Award” on 5th September 2000 by which he was granted two years extension in service. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner was to continue serving the respondents till 2010. The respondents promoted the persons who are junior to the petitioner in the seniority list as Head Master but did not consider the case of the petitioner as he was superannuated and was in service only on the strength of benefit granted to him on account of State Award conferred on him in the year 2000. This is the cause of grievance to the petitioner who states that since he had been permitted to continue in service by granting the extension, then the necessary benefits that accompanied such an extension including promotion ought to have been granted. The denial of promotion to him and the grant of the same in favour of his juniors is according to the petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-State of Haryana has controverted the contention raised by the petitioner by referring to the policy instructions of 1976 and 2006 which contemplate the following benefits which can be granted to an employee who is a recipient of the “State Award”. “Following incentives are given to the State awardee Teachers:- 1. Cash amount of Rs. 11,000/-. Civil Writ Petition No. 4083 of 2009 -2- 2. One Silver medal. 3. One shawl. 4. One certificate. 5. Two annual increments for five years. 6. Two years extension after retirement.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended by placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Manjit Walia Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (2) RSJ 310, that extension of service of employee implies “an increase in the length of time” and is different from reemployment and since the petitioner was granted the extension of two years of service all the necessary and consequential benefits accruing during such an extension resultantly has to follow and the deprivation thereof is arbitrary. Learned counsel for respondent-State of Haryana, on the other hand contended that in view of the specific instructions which limited the scope of the benefits accruing to a recipient of the State Award, no further benefit can be derived by the petitioner. He has further contended that if the prayer of the petitioner is accepted it would result in serious prejudice to the case of the persons who are junior to the petitioner and who earned the promotion on the basis of their own seniority upon the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. The facts are not in dispute. Consequently, the limited question which has to be answered in the instant writ petition is as to whether the petitioner who was granted the benefit of extension of service is also entitled to promotion during this extended span and which promotion has been granted to the persons who are junior to the petitioner after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The life span of service of petitioner, as that of any employee would stand extinguished on the date when such an employee attains the age of superannuation. The extension in the period of service granted to the petitioner is a result of recognition of his meritorious service. By virtue of the award, the Civil Writ Petition No. 4083 of 2009 -3- State Government bestows certain benefits upon such employees who have rendered service which can be termed to be more satisfactory than the others. The benefits of the awards have also been defined and are not ambiguous. It is a conglomerate of all which have been specified and includes the benefit of extension of the life of the service of the petitioner. But the petitioner cannot claim that such extension would necessarily also enable him to get the other benefits such as promotion, even though he may be entitled to pecuniary benefits such as increments etc which may be directly depending upon the service which he has rendered to the respondents during this period. The observations of the Division Bench which has been relied upon by the petitioner to enhance his case have emanated from a controversy of a divergent nature. In that case the incumbent before the Court had been granted the promotion and had prayed for increments which had been denied to him. But in the instant case the petitioner claims promotion which he certainly cannot get after his superannuation during the extension of his tenure of service. There has to be a distinction between the status of the employee who leads an extended life and between all those persons who live the normal tenure of service. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent has to be appreciated that an incumbent who is under going his normal tenure of service would naturally be expected to earn his promotion on the basis of the rules and regulations and debarring him of such promotion during the tenure thereof to him would be a travesty of justice, while a person who is on extended tenure would be doubly blessed. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner and is of the opinion that the reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court is misplaced as it was rendered on facts which were distinct from the facts of the case in hand. No ground to interfere in the impugned order is made out. The Civil Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) 4.1.2011. JUDGE