CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16655 OF 2008 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 21,2009
Suraj Bhan and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Sangwan, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court with
somewhat strange prayer. They seek writ of mandamus to command
the respondents for not making entry of their designation as
Storekeeper in their service book as they had been promoted as
Supervisor/Works Supervisor. As per the petitioners, nomenclature
for these designations, has not been changed in the Irrigation
Department.
At the outset, the counsel was questioned if writ petition
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16655 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:
for such a claim would be maintainable. Apparently, no legal or
fundamental rights of the petitioners seem to have been infringed for
which they could have filed this writ petition. It is more so when seen
in the light of the stand taken by the respondents that Engineer-in-
Chief, Irrigation Department has changed the nomenclature of some
of the posts having same nature of duties and identical function with
same pay scale, which, really would not effect the petitioners in any
manner. The counsel for the petitioners, however, insisted that this
change in nomenclature would prejudice their chances of promotion
or advancement in their service career without elaborating or
specifying as to how they are prejudiced.
The service of Petitioner No.1 was regularised w.e.f.
1.1.1986, after having been recruited as Mate on work charge basis
on 1.3.1979. Petitioner No.2, who was appointed as Motor Mate on
7.12.1982 was regularised w.e.f. 5.2.1996. On 27.2.2008, the
petitioners have been statedly promoted to the post of
Supervisor/Work Supervisor. This is a promotional post from
amongst Mate, Motor Mate, Time Clerks, Store Munshis, Store
Keepers etc. The pay scale of Supervisor having ITI qualification is
Rs.4000-6000. Same pay scale is given to the Supervisors, who
even do not have ITI Certificate. It is the case of the petitioners that
letter dated 20.8.2008 providing that designation of those promoted
vide order dated 27.2.2008 be read as Storekeeper instead of
Supervisor is aimed at denying the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000.
Copy of this order has been annexed with the petition as Annexure
P-4. This order, as per the petitioners, is passed without obtaining
their consent and hence, could not have been validly made on this
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16655 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:
ground as well. They have, thus, filed the present writ petition.
In the reply, it is brought out that the petitioners were
promoted from Group D posts of Mate/Motor Mate (functional pay
scale Rs.2550-3200/-) to Class III Post of Supervisor/Store Keeper in
pay scale of Rs.3050-4350 and not to Work Supervisors. It is then
pointed out that Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, through his
letter dated 26.9.2007 has changed the nomenclature of some of the
posts having same nature of duties and identical functional pay
scale. These posts, as referred to in the letter, are Store Supervisor,
Store keeper, Store Munshi and Time Clerk having the same pay
scale of Rs.2550-4350. All these posts have now been designated as
Storekeeper. It is stated that there is no distinction in the pay scales
between the ITI qualified workmen or non ITI workmen . As per the
respondents, the petitioners were promoted as Supervisors and not
as Work Supervisors. The difference between the posts of
Supervisor and that of Work Supervisor is highlighted by stating that
they both have different pay scales. To distinguish the case of the
petitioners visa-a-vis those who had filed CWP No.16103 of 1997, it
is pointed out that the persons in the said writ petition were directly
recruited to the post of Work Supervisor and not Supervisors who
were promoted from the posts of Time Clerk or Munshi as is the case
of the petitioners and as such, the said case has no relevance.
As already noticed, I have not been able to appreciate
how the petitioners have been put to prejudice by change of
nomenclature only. Concededly, the petitioners were promoted to the
post of Supervisors, which is having a pay scale of Rs.3050-4350.
With change of designation, they continue to draw the same pay
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16655 OF 2008 :{ 4 }:
scale. There is no distinction made on the ground of ITI qualification.
The petitioners are misconceived in seeking comparison with Work
Supervisor, which is in a different pay scale. The whole case, thus,
set up by the petitioners is based on misconception. The submission
that the designation could not have been changed without effecting
necessary changes in the Rules would not make any substantial
difference as it is only a nomenclature which has been changed for
those posts which were earlier known by a different name, the
reason for which has been disclosed. In this regard, it is mentioned
that all these posts were being called with such designation having
the same pay scale and identical nature of duties and hence, were
given new designation. It is not only the Store Supervisors, Store
Keepers, Store Munshi etc. who have also been so named as
Storekeeper but various other posts carrying similar pay scale have
also been clubbed together and given one designation as can be
seen from Annexure R-3. Changing of the designation, will not lead
to any civil consequences for the petitioners. Thus, there was no
need to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as pleaded.
The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show if the
petitioners would suffer any prejudice on account of change of this
designation.
I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ
jurisdiction and would, thus, dismiss the same.
August 21, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE
