N.K. Bajaj v. State Of Haryana And ORS.
CWP No.18402 of 1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.18402 of 1995 Date of Decision : 7.5.2024 N.K. Bajaj ..... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana --- TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL): The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare respondents no.3 to 9 junior to the petitioner, and grant him selection grade of ₹3000-4500 with effect from 12.6.1992, i.e., the date from which private respondents were given the same.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled to grant of selection grade from the date it has been given to ninth respondent, i.e., 12.6.1992. In this regard, he relied upon an interim order dated 17.5.2017, wherein a statement of the second respondent was recorded, that the ninth respondent was granted benefit of selection grade with effect from 1.6.1992 pursuant to seniority list prepared on the basis of pay scales in 1994. It was required to be prepared by taking into consideration length of service. Accordingly, seniority between the petitioner and ninth respondent would be rectified and the benefit of selection grade with effect from 1.6.1992 would be extended to Ashwani Kumar 2024.05.14 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.18402 of 1995 -2- the petitioner at par with the ninth respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits claimed. 3.
It is apparent on record that pursuant to the statement made by second respondent before this Court on 17.5.2017, an affidavit, dated 13.11.2017, was filed by the Joint Director on behalf of the Department bringing on record the speaking order dated 19.6.2017, Annexure R-3. It is to the effect that after considering representations of the concerned employees, the common seniority list was revised vide order dated 16.8.2002, whereby the petitioner was placed at a position junior to that of the ninth respondent. Besides, the dates of selection grade granted to the employees were also modified vide order dated 14.8.2003. Accordingly, the ninth respondent was given selection grade with effect from 20.10.1993, the date from which it had been given to the petitioner. 4.
With the revision of the seniority list as well as the date of selection grade to the ninth respondent, the petitioner's grievance does not stand since he is placed at par with the said respondent so far as grant of selection grade to him is concerned. Besides, there is no challenge either to the revision of seniority or to the revised/modified dates of grant of selection grade.
5.
In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition, and it stands dismissed.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 7.5.2024 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No Ashwani Kumar 2024.05.14 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document