CWP no. 10145 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP no. 10145 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 09-11-2011 Rajender Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Ravinder Malik-Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Family Welfare Block Extension Educator but thereafter he is still being treated as a Multiple Purpose Health Worker which was his initial appointment. The petitioner contends that he has been working as Multiple Purpose Health Worker since 11.3.1988 and during his service he improved his qualification by obtaining a degree of graduation and a diploma in health. By virtue of Annexure P-4 he was given additional charge of Block Extension Educator and by virtue of Annexure P-7 he was appointed as Family Welfare Block Extension Educator at CHC, Julana, District Jind but subsequently he was transferred from this place to another place. He was asked to join as Multiple Purpose Health Worker instead of Block Educator to which post he stood appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since he had been promoted and appointed to the post of Family Welfare Block Extension Educator he could not be made to work as Multiple Purpose Health Worker as this would amount to reversion. CWP no. 10145 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The contentions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the State who has justified the arrangement by saying that the petitioner was merely working in his own scale and was never promoted and as such this interim arrangement could not infer any right upon him. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that Annexure P-7 upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner to say that he was appointed on the substantial post of Family Welfare Block Extension Educator does not confer any right upon him. The terms and conditions as depicted in this order clearly restricts the petitioner to his own pay scale without any benefit of additional scale, promotion or seniority or any other benefit against the post of Family Welfare Block Extension Educator. This reveals that it is only an arrangement where the petitioner was permitted to work as Family Welfare Block Extension Educator. In view of the aforesaid, when no benefit has been conferred upon the petitioner, withdrawal of the same cannot be termed to be prejudicial to him as has been sought to be projected by him. There is no ground to interfere. Hence, dismissed. November 9, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge