Sanjeev Kumar, D.P.E. vs State of Haryana and others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner was appointed as a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) on 23.10.2000. He was assigned seniority No. 445 as per seniority list of District Education Officer, Yamuna Nagar. He was promoted as Demonstrator in Physical Education (P.T. Master) on 19.1.2007. On his promotion, it transpired that two persons, namely, Amit Dhandi Seniority No. 449 and Anil Kumar Seniority No. 499, who were junior to him as P.T.I. were promoted on 23.11.2004 ignoring the claim of the petitioner. He filed a representation to the respondents and thereafter sent a legal notice. As no reply was received by the petitioner, he preferred CWP No.18126 of 2008 in this Court which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2008 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide the representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In compliance of this order, respondents passed order dated 21.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) promoting the petitioner as Demonstrator in Physical Education (PT Master) with effect from 23.11.2004 i.e. the date from which the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. Although the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion from the date his juniors have been promoted was accepted, but he was not held entitled to arrears of pay prior to the date he actually took over the charge of the post of Demonstrator in Physical Education (PT Master) and was granted the benefit of notional pay fixation and seniority only.

After the passing of this order, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition claiming consequential benefits especially the monetary benefits which the petitioner is entitled to on his now revised date of promotion i.e. 23.11.2004.

Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents to which they have stated that as the petitioner had not worked on the post of D.P.E., and thus is not entitled to the pay for the period 23.11.2004 till 19.1.2007. The other contentions with regard to the promotion of his juniors have been admitted.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

The facts as stated above are not in dispute. The petitioner admittedly was senior to Amit Dhandi and Anil Kumar who were promoted on 23.11.2004 ignoring the claim of the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner was promoted as DPE on 19.1.2007. There is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any fault on the part of the petitioner which led to ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner when approached this Court and a direction was issued to consider the claim of the petitioner, the said claim has been granted vide order dated 21.11.2009 promoting him from the date his juniors were promoted i.e. 23.11.2004 but has been denied the monetary benefits from 23.11.2004 to 19.1.2007 on the ground that he has not worked on the said post. This stand of the respondents cannot be accepted especially when there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not eligible or had obtained any disqualification which would dis-entitle him for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. Respondents cannot penalize an employee for their own faults. Benefit, which the petitioner was entitled to, has been denied to him in a most unreasonable manner without any justification.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed; the petitioner is held entitled to arrears of pay from the date he has now been promoted vide order dated 21.11.2009 till the date of his earlier promotion i.e. 19.1.2007 with consequential benefits. The benefits be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.