CWP No.11272 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 19.8.2010 Harvinder Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS H.U.D.A. And others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.K.L.Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Preeti Khanna, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as Clerk vide order dated 14.12.1979 as General Category candidate whereas respondent no.3 who belongs to Scheduled Caste Category came to be appointed as Clerk on 30.11.1981. In the common seniority list, the petitioner figures at Sr. No.167 and respondent no.3 at Sr. No.202. Respondent no.3 was granted accelerated promotion as Assistant on 30.10.1987 against roster vacancy. The petitioner also earned promotion as Assistant on the basis of his seniority as a General Category candidate on 21.3.2000. Since respondent no.3 has been promoted earlier than the petitioner, he was drawing more salary than CWP No.11272 of 2008 2 the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly claims his seniority over and above respondent no.3 in the cadre of Assistant, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Janjua-II and others vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1999(4) RSJ 211 and the pay scale at par with respondent no.3 who is admittedly junior to him and was granted accelerated promotion being a reserved category candidate. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court seeking a direction for fixation of his pay at par with respondent no.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in the present case is no more res integra having been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Charan Dass vs. State of Haryana (CWP No.5956/2008 decided on 18.11.2008) as also in the case of R.L.Bhagat, IPS, son of late Shri Amar Nath vs. The State of Punjab & Others, (CWP No.17880/2008 decided on .5.2009). In the case of Charan Dass (supra), the Division Bench considering the ratio in Ajit Singh Janjua-II (supra), made following observations:- “(v) The petitioner is entitled to be stepped up in his scale of pay on the date of his promotion to the next higher post as Assistant on par with his junior Rameshwar who was promoted earlier and still later to the posts of Deputy Superintendents and Superintendents at the respective levels, 2, 3 & 4 from the dates when he assumed office at the promotion posts. The impugned order dated 4.2.2008 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.” CWP No.11272 of 2008 3 A similar issue came to be considered by this Court in case of R.L.Bhagat (supra) wherein on consideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, following observations have been made:- "From the perusal of judgment passed in Ajit Singh Januja-II case (supra), the legal position that has emerged is that whenever a reserved category candidate is promoted against Roster Point earmarked for such reserved Category, he gets excelrated promotion and not the seniority. The Roster promotion cannot determine the seniority either at the initial appointment or even promotion. At the time of initial appointment, even though the placement of reserved category candidates is to be made on the basis of slots meant for reserved categories, none-the-less the seniority has to be determined on the basis of their inter-se merit in the selection. Similarly, as and when the general category candidate is promoted from Level-I to Level-II, even on a later date than the reserved category promotee, his seniority at Level-II will be restored notwithstanding the promotion at a later point of time. This is by virtue of the catch up rule applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments......" In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are CWP No.11272 of 2008 4 directed to fix the pay of the petitioner at par with respondent no.3 with effect from the date the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant. Let the arrears be determined and paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 19.8.2010 MFK