Narinder Singh Rajan Alias Narinder Singh v. State Of Haryana And Another
!"#$ "%&'&#()* *
) + ,*- -- !"#
$%$ &!'
!
!"#
! '$ !"#( ))))) --*
. / 01 $# * $ $# # $#+#" !$#$$,* #$$ -# .
## $#+#" $ (/01(0(2$*(3" # &(% '"
4 .
*$!#$((5+((6 78 #, mandamus # + " #$*
$ ! 3"$ , $$#9$* (
$$* $4 # 1.
:
$ " *# # $#$ * , , ( &3" , #*"0/0((046;!- 4<* ,* 3"# "$=-#"7#$ ,
# #$ 4>5001?400@>200' #*$$ ! +& #9$$
$# *
$ # ! , $$
>/1401(046A #$ * "# , +$** ! 8 *, * B * $ ! 0/0((046 $ 1401(046,$$ # , * # , " !- 4
0/0((046 $## ! $$ , # 3" $
" $+* $ "*-* $, .
# # $$"# $,.
# 3" $ $ *$ - +$ * $ , 2 C $#$ * $ 3", $ $$* 3" * "!-40/0((046 # ! $$ 1401(046
," * , # ,- $+* * #, :
$ $ * " #?;< &3" !# , # *# $ , *" 3" $$ ## # " #$ # # $, * "$ '" :
$$* * $ !-4 #$ , #*$$ ! +&
#9 $$
$# * - $ , # ,"$ , 96>D (>D *,## # ## ! +& , "$*$ , -# 9, # * # ,* *
$ $* "* - * > * E $ =-#"7#$,1001(04/ *, # ,* #$411 "#7# $ .# $ 3" # 6>D 9400D.
, '" "$ * # * * '" * $ ,$* 3" ## 3"$ $"## 3"* * $$ *# #$ $# , '" "$ * $ , * $
1 $+* "*- ! $
, * , -# 9 , 9 # # * #, 5 8 " $#$ 6 .
#"$" #, , , $ " !- 4 #$ ! # $$ ,$ $ $ - $+* .
0/0((046;!-4<# F
(A State University established under Haryana Act No. XXV of 1975) NAAC Accredited 'A' Grade No.ΕΝ'11/2017/M'58 Vol.IX/1610 Dated: 8/2/17 To Narinder Singh Rajan, Superintendent, P&S Cell.
M. D. University, Rohtak
!
"
#"" "
$ % "
$ Dear Sir,
The Vice'Chancellor, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee made in its meeting held on 08.02.2017 and in anticipation of the approval of the Executive Council, has been pleased to promote you to the post of Assistant Registrar with immediate effect in the pay scale of Rs. 15600' 39100+5400/' Grade Pay on adhoc basis till the post of Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar meant for direct quota are filled up through open selection.
If your work and conduct are not found satisfactory, you will be reverted to your substantive post of Superintendent. If you accept the above offer, you may submit your joining report to the Registrar.
"" "
$ % "
$&"
'( # ) Endst. No. EN'11/2017/M.58 Vol.IX/ Dated:
Copy of the above is forwarded to the following for information and necessary action:'
1. Finance Officer, M. D. University, Rohtak.
2. Director, University Computer Centre, M. D. University, Rohtak.
3. Deputy Registrar, P&S Cell, M. D. University, Rohtak.
4. OSD to Vice'Chancellor and P.A. to Registrar (for kind information of the Vice'Chancellor/ Registrar), M.D.U., Rohtak. "" "
$ % "
$&"
'( # ) / !*$ ,$ , # ** #7 #$$ 3" #
& $
0 7
*# "$ =-#"7#$ * * ,
# #$ * !$
3" , "## -# * , 9 # # * , *#,"$*$ 9 ## .
# ,$ , # * * # * -# 9*, ,$* # , * -# 9
#$ $-* #, #
*#* 7 ? 8$$,*G*$ 7
'') * "' $ # $+$$$,$
-& ./0(1223.
4 $+ 4 2 # % 2 $, %$ "' $ $ $$,
"-& ../(522 /6 B$$%# 7 27 '3 05/ #388/ $ 9 $" 2 $, "' $ # $+$$ $,
"- ,4 ,, 38'
3'38
$ # , #*" #$* ,$## #$$, $, #$ .
# $, 9 # #
2 $ *.
$#$$ , $$ 40
$"
# $ $ $&"!$(#
97. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Shreedaran Chandra Ghosh v. State of Assam & Ors. (1996) 10 SCC 567, as also on State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma & Ors., JT 1993 (3) SC 740, to contend that since the respondent was promoted on the basis of stop'gap arrangement, he could not claim promotion as a matter of right nor could be claim salary for the post of Junior Engineer'I as he was given only current duty charge of the post. Both the contentions cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has already held that the respondent having been promoted as Junior Engineer I, though in stop'gap arrangement, was continued on that post, and therefore, he has a right to be considered for regular promotion. Having regard to the facts of this case, there is no reason to differ with the Tribunal
8. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to contend that when the respondent was promoted in stop'gap arrangement as Junior Engineer I, he had given an undertaking to the appellant that on the basis of stop'gap arrangement, he would not claim promotion as of right nor would he claim any benefit pertaining to that post. The argument, to say the least, is preposterous. Apart from the fact that the Government in its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to raise such an argument, the undertaking which is said to constitute an agreement between the parties cannot be enforced at law. The respondent being an employee of the appellant had to break his period of stagnation although, as we have found earlier, he was the only person amongst the non'diploma holders available for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer I and was, therefore, likely to be considered for promotion in his own right. An agreement that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post or, as in the instant case, a stop'gap arrangement is made to place him
on the higher post, he would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also against public policy. It would, therefore, be unenforceable in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872."
44
#" $ , ! , " !-4$$ ## ,$ #$*$ $ 3"#$ "$ , # $, 4( # *+$* ## #* ," .
$ * 3" * #.
$#$ 3" 2 $$* 3" , * (04/ $,* =-#"7#$ 3" # 6>D 9 400D9 .
$""* ,$ " #
*# $ (046, # , $ (04/ " *#$$#$ "#"#!$ $$*
,$ , "$ * # # 3" $$$$ " " 41 B "#$ $
-# 9* # ! $ $ #* *$ #" $, $* *#$#$ $* * 3",$ , 3"G, * # #$* # * # .
7 # ", * #, # * $# *# $$ 3"*$ , * *-$ *+* ! 8 , "#$ *, $$ *- - +$* 42 8", ### # $$, 4> .
(# #$ !
# !-4$$ $ , 5D ; $< .
3" #- +$* * $, ! #$#$ $ , 5D ; $<.
* $$* ,
45 8# *, $ $$*$?D ; $<
-- * * shweta :
+H+ :
*$ H+