about new pension scheme & about adhoc service

about adhoc service

about new pension scheme

हरियाणा सरकार -वर्ष 2013 के दौरान अपने कार्यालयों के सार्वजनिक अवकाश की सूची


 विभिन्न प्रतिष्ठित विभूतियों के
जन्मदिवसों, पुण्य-तिथियों व त्यौहारों को सावर्जनिक
अवकाश घोषित किया गया है। इनमें 18 जनवरी-गुरु गोबिन्द
सिंह जन्मदिवस, 15 फरवरी सर छोटूराम जयंती व बसन्त
पंचमी, 25 फरवरी- गुरू रविदास जयंती, 7 मार्च
महर्षि दयानन्द सरस्वती जयंती, 27 मार्च-होली, 19
अपै्रल- रामनवमी, 24 अप्रैल महावीर जयंती, 11 जून-
महाराणा प्रताप जयन्ती, 9 अगस्त ईद-उल-फितर, 15
अगस्त-स्वतंत्रता दिवस, 28 अगस्त जनमाष्ठमी, 23
सितम्बर- हरियाणा शहीदी दिवस, 2अक्तूबर-
महात्मा गांधी जयन्ती, 16 अक्तूबर- ईद-उल-जुहा-(बकर-
ईद), 18 अक्तूबर-महर्षि वाल्मीकि जयंती, 1 नवम्बर-
हरियाणा दिवस, 4 नवम्बर- विश्वकर्मा दिवस, 25
दिसम्बर क्रिसमस दिवस तथा 26 दिसम्बर-शहीद उद्यम
सिंह जन्मदिवस शामिल है।
इसके अतिरिक्त, जो त्यौहार व अवसर सावर्जनिक
अवकाश की तिथियों में पडे हैं उनमें26 जनवरी गणतंत्र
दिवस, 10 मार्च महाशिवरात्रि, 23 मार्च- भगत सिंह,
राजगुरू व सुखदेव शहीदी दिवस, 13 अप्रैल बैसाखी, 14
अप्रैल-डॉ भीम राव अम्बेडकर जयंती, 12 मई- भगवान
परशुराम जयंती, 23 जून संत कबीर जयंती, 10 अगस्त
तीज, 5 अक्तूबर महाराजा अग्रसेन जयंती, 13 अक्तूबर-
दशहरा, 3 नवम्बर- दिवाली तथा 17 नवम्बर- गुरू नानक
जयंती शामिल है।इसके अतिरिक्त कर्मचारियों को जिन
वैकल्पिक अवकाशों में से कोई दो अवकाश लेने
की अनुमति होगी, उनमें ईद-ए-मिलाद/मिलाद-उल-नबी 25
जनवरी, गुड फ्राइडे 29 मार्च, बुद्घपूर्णिमा 25 मई, गुरु
अर्जुन देव शहीदी दिवस 12 जून, शहीद उद्यम सिंह
शहीदी दिवस 31 जुलाई, रक्षाबंधन 20 अगस्त,
करवा चौथ 22 अक्तूबर, गोवर्धन पूजा 3 नवम्बर, मुहर्रम
14 नवम्बर तथा गुरु तेग बहादुर शहीदी दिवस- 24 नवम्बर
शामिल है।
इसी प्रकार, परक्राम्य लिखित अधिनियम 1881
की धारा 25 के तहत जो अवकाश सार्वजनिक अवकाश
होंगे, उनमें गणतंत्र दिवस, गुरू रविदास जयंती,
महाशिवरात्रि, होली, पहली अप्रैल बैंक अवकाश, डॉ0
बी आर अम्बेडकर जयंती, महावीर जयंती, स्वतंत्रता दिवस,
जन्माष्ठमी, 30 सितम्बर- बैंकों के लेखों का अर्द्धवार्षिक
समाप्ति, महात्मा गांधी जयंती, ईद-उल-फितर, दशहरा,
महर्षि बाल्मिकी जयंती, दीवाली, गुरू नानक
जयंती तथा क्रिसमस दिवस शामिल हैं।हरियाणा के मुख्य
सचिव कार्यालय द्वारा जारी इस आशय
की अधिसूचना अनुसार सभी शनिवारों व
रविवारों को भी सरकारी कार्यालयों में सार्वजनिक अवकाश
रहेगा

नर्सरी के विद्यार्थियों की नहीं होगी सर्वे में गिनती

नर्सरी के विद्यार्थियों की नहीं होगी सर्वे में गिनती

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Size

 

 

नर्सरी के बच्चों को मिड डे मील दिया जाएगा। उनकी संख्या को यू-डाइस फार्म में नहीं भरा जाएगा। कुछ स्कूल मुखियाओं को गलतफहमी हो गई है। उसे दूर करना जरूरी है।

>>वंदना गुप्ता, जिला मौलिक शिक्षा अधिकारी

बैठक में उन्होंने केवल यू-डाइस के फार्म में नर्सरी के बच्चों की छात्र संख्या नहीं दिए जाने के निर्देश दिए थे। मिड-डे-मील न देने संबंधी कोई मौखिक निर्देश नहीं दिए गए हैं।

>>बलबीर सिंह, खंड शिक्षा अधिकारी

जासंकें, जींद : प्राइमरी स्कूलों के विद्यार्थियों की संख्या की जानकारी जुटाने के लिए होने वाले सर्वे (यू-डाइस) में नर्सरी के बच्चों की छात्र संख्या को नहीं जोड़ा जाएगा। इसके लिए जिले के अधिकारी स्कूल मुखियाओं को बैठक में मौखिक सूचना दे रहे हैं। बाकायदा स्कूल मुखियाओं को बैठक में फार्म वितरित कर दिए गए हैं।

पहली से आठवीं कक्षा के विद्यार्थियों की छात्र संख्या जानने के लिए अबकी बार स्कूल मुखियाओं द्वारा यू-डाइस के फार्म भरे जाएंगे। इसमें पहली से आठवीं कक्षा तक के बच्चों की पूरी जानकारी होगी। यही नहीं इस फार्म में नर्सरी कक्षा के बच्चों की संख्या को शामिल नहीं किया जाएगा। इसमें केवल पहली से आठवीं कक्षा के बच्चों की छात्र संख्या ही लिखी जाएगी। वहीं मिड डे मील की छात्र संख्या में भी इसे शामिल नहीं किया जाएगा। हालांकि बच्चों को मिड डे मील जरूर दिया जाएगा।

स्कूल मुखियाओं में असमंजस की स्थिति : स्कूल मुखियाओं की माने तो अब नर्सरी के बच्चों छात्र संख्या में नहीं जोड़ा जाएगा, जिसके चलते उनको मिड डे मील नहीं दिया जाएगा। वहीं अधिकारियों की माने तो मिड डे मील जरूर दिया जाएगा।

स्कूलों में पहुंचेगा अच्छा फर्नीचर’
जागरण ब्यूरो, चंडीगढ़ : शिक्षा मंत्री गीता भुक्कल ने कहा कि स्कूलों में बच्चों को बैठने के लिए डेस्क प्रदान करने की प्रक्रिया जारी है। सभी आरोही स्कूलों को शत प्रतिशत फर्नीचर पहुंचा दिया गया है और महाविद्यालयों में भी अच्छे फर्नीचर मुहैया करवाए गए हैं। दैनिक जागरण ने 2 दिसंबर के अंक में इस मुद्दे को प्रमुखता से प्रकाशित किया था।
प्राथमिक तथा माध्यमिक स्कूलों में विद्यार्थियों को अच्छे फर्नीचर उपलब्ध करवाने को प्राथमिकता दी जा रही है। नई शैक्षणिक सत्र से स्कूलों में कोई भी बच्च जमीन पर नहीं बैठेगा, जिसके लिए व्यापक प्रबंध गए है। उन्होंने कहा कि स्कूलों में अध्यापकों के स्टॉफ रूम के लिए भी मॉडर्न फर्नीचर प्रदान किया जाएगा ताकि सरकारी स्कूलों को आधुनिक स्वरूप प्रदान किया जा सके।
बदलेगी

 आइटीआइ की ड्रेस : प्रदेश में आइटीआइ के विद्यार्थी अब यूनिफार्म में नजर आएंगे। औद्योगिक प्रशिक्षण विभाग द्वारा आइटीआइ के विद्यार्थियों के लिए नई स्मार्ट यूनिफॉर्म डिजाइन करने का निर्णय लिया गया है। विद्यार्थी अपने लिए खुद यूनिफार्म डिजाइन करेंगे। शिक्षा एवं औद्योगिक प्रशिक्षण मंत्री गीता भुक्कल ने बताया कि अधिकारियों को आइटीआइ विद्यार्थियों के लिए बेहतरीन यूनिफार्म डिजाइन करने के दिशा-निर्देश दिए गए हैं। औद्योगिक प्रशिक्षण संस्थानों में ड्रेस डिजाइनिंग के पाठ्यक्रम भी शुरू किए गए हैं। उन्होंने कहा कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा वर्ष 2012 को युवा वर्ष के रूप में मनाया जा रहा है और इस दौरान युवा के कौशल विकास पर विशेष बल दिया जा रहा है।

लाखों विद्यार्थियों का पढ़ने का सपना ध्वस्त

लाखों विद्यार्थियों का पढ़ने का सपना ध्वस्त
सरकार द्वारा विश्वविद्यालय के एक्ट में संशोधन करने से दूरस्थ शिक्षा ग्रहण करने वाले लाखों विद्यार्थियों का इसके जरिये पढ़ाई करने का रास्ता बंद हो गया है। अब प्रदेश में कोई भी विद्यार्थी मदवि के साथ अन्य किसी भी विश्वविद्यालय से दूरस्थ शिक्षा प्राप्त नहीं कर सकेगा। अकेले मदवि से प्रति वर्ष करीब डेढ़ लाख विद्यार्थी दूरस्थ शिक्षा प्राप्त करते थे। प्रदेश में अन्य विश्वविद्यालयों में इनकी संख्या कई गुणा हो सकती है। दूरस्थ शिक्षा बंद किए जाने से मदवि सहित अन्य विश्वविद्यालयों में आर्थिक संकट खड़ा हो जाएगा। विश्वविद्यालयों के लिए दूरस्थ शिक्षा से होने वाली आमदनी आय का मुख्य स्त्रोत थी। प्रदेश सरकार ने हाल ही में विधानसभा सत्र में विश्वविद्यालय के एक्ट में दूसरा संशोधन किया था। इस संशोधन के गजट नोटिफिकेशन में साफ तौर पर विश्वविद्यालय में दूरस्थ शिक्षा को बंद कर दिया गया है। हालांकि बिल पेश करते समय स्टडी सेंटर को बंद किया था, लेकिन गजट नोटिफिकेशन में मदवि के कैंपस में दी जाने वाली दूरस्थ शिक्षा पर भी प्रतिबंध 

लगा दिया है। ऐसे में अकेले मदवि से दूरस्थ शिक्षा ग्रहण करने वाले करीब डेढ़ लाख विद्यार्थी प्रभावित हो गए हैं। इससे तो विद्यार्थियों के लिए दूरस्थ शिक्षा ग्रहण करने का एक तरह से रास्ता ही बंद हो गया है। प्रदेश में अन्य विश्वविद्यालय भी दायरे में : विधानसभा में पारित बिल के दायरे में प्रदेश के चारों विश्वविद्यालय आते हैं। महर्षि दयानंद विश्वविद्यालय के अलावा, कुवि, चौधरी देवीलाल विश्वविद्यालय सिरसा और भगत फूल सिंह महिला विश्वविद्यालय खानपुर कलां, सोनीपत में भी दूरस्थ शिक्षा पर प्रतिबंध लग गया है।

खानपुर कलां, सोनीपत में भी दूरस्थ शिक्षा पर प्रतिबंध लग गया है। इसलिए प्रदेश के किसी भी विश्वविद्यालय से विद्यार्थी दूरस्थ शिक्षा प्राप्त नहीं कर सकेंगे। गजट नोटिफिकेशन हो चुका है : गर्ग मदवि के दूरस्थ शिक्षा विभाग के निदेशक प्रो. नरेंद्र कुमार गर्ग का कहना है कि विधानसभा द्वारा गजट नोटिफिकेशन में स्टडी सेंटर के साथ कैंपस से भी दूरस्थ शिक्षा को बंद कर दिया गया है। स्टडी सेंटर तो पहले ही बंद कर दिए गए थे, अब गजट नोटिफिकेशन के बाद दूरस्थ 

शिक्षा विभाग ने की मास्टरों की वरिष्ठता सूची ऑनलाइन

Posted: 05 Dec 2012 04:15 PM PST

 शिक्षा विभाग ने बुधवार को प्रदेश के मास्टरों की वरिष्ठता सूची को ऑन लाइन कर दिया है। इससे पदोन्नति आदि में किसी भी प्रकार की अनियमितता की आशंका नहीं रहेगी। 1018 पृष्ठ की इस सूची में प्रदेश के 20348 मास्टरों को शामिल किया गया है। शिक्षा विभाग ने डीएसई.एचआरवाई.जीओवी.इन पर यह सूची आदेश क्रमांक 2,80,-2009 एचआरएम-1 (1) पंचकूला दिनांक 5 दिसंबर 2012 के तहत जारी की है। मास्टर वर्ग एसोसिएशन के राज्य महासचिव विकास शर्मा ने बताया कि नई पदोन्नति सूचियां इसी वरिष्ठता सूची के आधार पर निकाली जानी हैं। उन्होंने कहा कि एसोसिएशन विभाग पर स्थायीकरण सूची भी जल्द जारी करने का दबाव बना रही है

जेबीटी भर्ती घोटाले का पांचवां आरोपी मरा Posted: 05 Dec 2012 04:24 PM PST : हरियाणा के बहुचर्चित जूनियर बेसिक ट्रेंड (जेबीटी) शिक्षक भर्ती घोटाले में आरोपी पूरनचंद की गत तीन दिसंबर को मौत हो गई। उनके वकील आरएल प्रसाद ने रोहिणी कोर्ट स्थित सीबीआइ के विशेष जज विनोद कुमार की अदालत में मंगलवार को अर्जी दायर कर यह जानकारी दी। उनकी अर्जी पर अदालत ने सीबीआइ को मौत का सत्यापन करने का निर्देश दिया है। सीबीआइ छह दिसंबर को रिपोर्ट अदालत में सौंपेगी। पूरनचंद पानीपत के लिए बनाई गई शिक्षक चयन समिति के सदस्य थे। वह पानीपत में ब्लॉक एजुकेशन अफसर के पद पर तैनात थे। इसके पूर्व इस मामले के चार आरोपी प्रभुदयाल, शशि भूषण, नत्थूराम व कमला देवी की मौत हो चुकी है। इन चारों का नाम आरोपियों की सूची से हटा दिया गया है। गौरतलब है कि हरियाणा के पूर्व मुख्यमंत्री ओमप्रकाश चौटाला, उनके विशेष कार्य अधिकारी विद्याधर, पुत्र अजय सिंह चौटाला व तत्कालीन शिक्षा निदेशक संजीव कुमार सहित 62 लोगों को सीबीआइ ने इस मामले में आरोपी बनाया था

quashing the instructions dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure P-8), vide which the State of Haryana has granted ‘accelerated seniority’ to the scheduled caste category employees

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
CASE STATUS INFORMATION SYSTEM

Click Here to View Judgment

Status of Appeal COCP-3243/2012 in Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Status :  DISPOSED

Status of          CIVIL WRIT PETITION   17280        of    2011     PREM KUMAR VERMA AND ORS                 Vs.                  STATE OF HARYANA Pet's Adv.     :   DHARMENDER SINGH RAWAT                    Date of Disposal :     Tuesday, August 07, 2012 Last Listed On :     Friday, July 06, 2012 List Type :  P      FIR No. :   NO FIR DETAILS AVAILABLE / NOT A CRIMINAL CASE     Category :  GOVT SERVICE (HY)-sb      Bench for Next Hearing Dt :  MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,---,---     Bench Sl. No : 1      Bench for Last Hearing Dt :  MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,---,---     Bench Sl. No : Not Available      CONNECTED APPLICATION (S) No Connected Application.      CONNECTED MATTER (S) No Connected Cases.      Case Updated on:   Tuesday, August 07, 2012

CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 17280 of 2011
Date of Decision: 07.08.2012
Prem Kumar Verma and others
…..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
State of Haryana
…..RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
PRESENT:Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for
issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the instructions dated
16.03.2006 (Annexure P-8), vide which the State of Haryana has
granted ‘accelerated seniority’ to the scheduled caste category
employees in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and
the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj vs. Union
of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212. Prayer has also been made for
quashing the orders dated 16.09.2010 (Annexure P-5) and CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 2
17.09.2010 (Annexure P-6), vide which the claim of the petitioners for
stepping up of their pay at par with their junior scheduled caste
category employee Sh. Amar Singh stands rejected.
Petitioners are general category employees and were
appointed, after clearing the departmental test, as Sub-Divisional
Clerks before Sh. Amar Singh, a scheduled caste category
employee. Since Sh. Amar Singh belongs to the scheduled caste, he
was promoted as Accounts Clerk on 01.02.1982 as per the roster
point granting him the benefit of reservation whereas the petitioners,
who were senior to him in the feeder cadre of Sub-Divisional Clerk,
were promoted as Accounts Clerk after 16.03.2006 on various dates.
It was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit
Singh Janjua and others vs. State of Punjab and others, JT 1999
(7) S.C. 153 vide its judgment dated 16.09.1999 that though a
reserved category employee can be promoted on a higher post on
the basis of reservation (roster point) but whenever a senior general
category employee will be promoted to the higher post to which the
reserved category candidate stands promoted, the general category
employee on such promotion shall be declared senior to the reserved
category employee on that particular post and will be granted the
benefit accordingly. On the basis of this judgment of the Supreme
Court, Government of Haryana issued instructions dated 14.10.1999
explaining therein that no employee belonging to the reserved
category of scheduled caste or backward class shall be allowed CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 3
the benefit of accelerated seniority over his/her senior belonging to
the general category from the feeder service under the policy of
reservation.
Effect of these instructions and the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Janjua’s case (supra) was that the general
category employee, on his promotion to the higher post, regained
seniority over the scheduled caste category employee. Although the
benefit of seniority was granted to the general category employee on
the principle of catching up at the higher post yet the benefit of
equivalence of pay drawn by a junior scheduled caste employee and
the senior general category employee was not given effect to
meaning thereby that the general category employee despite
becoming senior on his promotion was drawing less pay as
compared to his junior scheduled caste category employee who
stood promoted earlier because of the benefit of reservation.
Aggrieved with this discrimination, one Charan Dass
(senior general category employee) filed CWP No. 5956 of 2008
titled as Charan Dass vs. State of Haryana, praying for stepping up
of his pay at par with his junior backward class category employee in
the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Janjua’s case
(supra). The writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment
dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure P-2). This judgment was accepted by
the Government of Haryana and instructions dated 05.03.2009 were
issued directing all the departments to step up the pay of senior CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 4
general category employees at par with junior scheduled caste
category employees, meaning thereby that the judgment in the case
of Charan Dass (supra) was generalized.
Despite this, petitioners were not granted the benefit of
the judgment and the instructions. They thus submitted their
representations claiming the benefit of stepping up of their pay
equivalent to that of Sh. Amar Singh, a junior scheduled caste
category employee. This representation was rejected by the
respondents vide order dated 17.09.2010 on the ground that their
claim cannot be accepted for stepping up of their pay at par with
junior scheduled caste category employee as they were promoted as
Accounts Clerks after issuance of instructions dated 16.03.2006
(Annexure P-8) issued by the Government of Haryana giving effect to
the notification dated 04.01.2002 issued by the Government of India
amending Article 16 (4-A) i.e. the Constitution (Eighty Fifth)
Amendment Act, 2001, according to which, a decision was taken by
the State Government that the scheduled caste category employees
will be entitled to accelerated seniority as a consequence of
promotion under the reservation policy. Reference was also made to
a letter dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P-7), wherein it was decided that
the stepping up of pay of senior general category employees at par
with their junior counterparts of reserved category employees would
be effective to promotions made on or before 15.03.2006, the date
after which the instructions dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure P-8) have
come into force.CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 5
With this situation, petitioners have approached this
Court challenging the Government instructions dated 16.03.2006
(Annexure P-8) vide which the State of Haryana has granted
accelerated seniority to the scheduled caste category employees.
Challenge has also been posed to the orders dated 16.09.2010
(Annexure P-5) and 17.09.2010 (Annexure P-6), vide which the claim
of the petitioners stands rejected in the wake of instructions dated
16.03.2006.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Constitution
(Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001, amending Article 16 (4-A) has
been upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported as M.
Nagaraj vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, wherein the
Supreme Court, in para 123, has held that the impugned provision is
an enabling provision and the State is not bound to make reservation
for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in matters of promotions.
However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such
provision, the State has been mandated to collect quantifiable data
showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of
representation of that class in public employment in addition to
compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of India. This
exercise, as mandated by the Supreme Court, has not been
undertaken by the Government of Haryana. No survey has been
conducted, no data has been collected, which would determine as to
whether adequate reservation of scheduled caste categoryCWP  No. 17280 of 2011 6
employees in public employment is there or not but has merely, in the
light of the amendment of the Constitution, decided to grant
accelerated seniority to the scheduled caste employees, who have
been promoted as a consequence of reservation policy.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered similar decision,
as in the present case, taken by the State of U.P. where benefit of
accelerated seniority was granted in the cases of U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh and others, JT 2012 (4) SC 459 and
struck it down. In Suraj Bhan Meena and another vs. State of
Rajasthan and others, 2011 (2) SCT 260, the decision of the State
of Rajasthan for granting accelerated seniority to the reserved
category employees, who have been promoted as a consequence of
reservation policy, was struck down on the ground of non-compliance
of the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj
(supra). He, on this basis, contends that the writ petition deserves to
be allowed and the impugned orders/notifications deserve to be
quashed.
Counsel for the respondents could not, on the basis of the
written statement filed by the respondents, indicate as to any
exercise taken out by the respondents which would fulfil the mandate
of the Supreme Court with regard to the grant of accelerated seniority
to the reserved category employees. Nothing has been mentioned in
the reply which would show that any data was collected or any survey
done which would show backwardness of the class and inadequacyCWP  No. 17280 of 2011 7
of representation in public employment in addition to compliance with
Article 335 of the Constitution of India to justify the grant of benefit of
accelerated seniority to the scheduled caste employees as enabled
by the Constitution in Article 16 (4-A). A fervent effort was made by
her to contend that once the principle of reservation was made
applicable to the spectrum of promotion, no fresh exercise is
necessary nor it is required as the benefit of reservation has been
given by the respondents after taking that into consideration. The
efficiency of the service will also not be jeopardized in any manner.
She, accordingly, states that the decision of the Government, which
is reflected in the instructions dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure P-8), is in
consonance with the constitutional mandate and the consequential
orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners deserve to be upheld.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel
for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the
records of the case.
Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution of India reads as
follows:-
“ Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for reservation in matter of
promotion with consequential seniority, to any class or
classes of posts in the services under the State in favour
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which, in
the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented
in the services under the State.”CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 8
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagaraj’s case in paras 123
and 124 while upholding the Constitutional (Eighty Fifth) Amendment
Act, 2001, has held as follows:
“37.7 In the conclusion portions, in paragraphs 123 and
124, it has been ruled thus:
123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main
issue concerns the “extent of reservation”. In this regard
the State concerned will have to show in each case the
existence of the compelling reasons, namely,
backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall
administrative efficiency before making provision for
reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is
an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make
reservation for SCs/STs in matter of promotions. However,
if they wish to exercise their discretion ad make such
provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data
showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of
representation of that class in public employment in
addition to compliance with Article 335. It is made clear
that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated
above, the State will have to see that its reservation
provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach
the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or
extend the reservation indefinitely.CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 9
124. Subject to the above we uphold the constitutional
validity of the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment)
Act, 1995, the Constitution (Eighty First Amendment) Act,
2000; the Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act,
2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act
2001.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has thus laid down the
parameters, in compliance whereof the State Government can
provide for accelerated seniority to the Supreme Court employees.
Instructions dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure P-8) have to be tested on
the touchstone of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in M.
Nagaraj’s case (supra).
It has been stated by the petitioners that the State of
Haryana did not undertake any survey and did not collect any
quantified data regarding inadequacy of representation in public
service, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents in their
reply filed to the writ petition. It has merely been said that in the light
of the amendment of the Constitution, a decision was taken by the
Government to provide benefit of Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution.
Paras 2, 3 and 4 of Instructions dated 16.03.2006
(Annexure P-8) read as follows:-
“2. The Government of India has notified the
Constitution (Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001 on CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 10
4.1.2002 amending Article 16 (4-A), which now reads as
under:-
“ Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for reservation in matters of
promotion with consequential seniority, to any class or
classes of posts in the services under the State in favour
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately
represented in the services under the State.”
3. In the wake of the above enabling provision, after
careful consideration of the matter, it has been decided
by the State Government that the Scheduled Castes
employees will be entitled to “accelerated seniority” as a
consequence of promotions under the reservation policy.
4. This decision shall come into force with immediate
effect and shall have prospective effect only.
These instructions should be brought to the notice
of all concerned for being adhered to strictly.”
A perusal of these paras would indicate that the decision
was taken by the State Government on consideration of the matter
that there is an enabling provision provided now under the
Constitution and, therefore, the scheduled caste employees will be
entitled to accelerated seniority as a consequence of promotions
under the reservation policy. This would not fulfil the mandate of lawCWP  No. 17280 of 2011 11
as laid down by the Supreme Court in Nagaraj's case (supra) for a
decision of the State to be valid. Similar situation had cropped up
before the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Bhan Meena (supra),
where the Supreme Court had proceeded to quash the decision so
taken by the Government of Rajasthan providing accelerated
seniority to the promoted scheduled caste employees who had taken
the benefit of reservation.
In a recent case in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court again while considering the validity of a
decision taken by the State of U.P. for granting accelerated seniority,
culled out the principles, which have been laid down by the Supreme
Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and in paras 39 to 41, has held as
follows:
“39. At this stage, we think it appropriate to refer to the
case of Suraj Bhan Meena and another (supra). In the
said case, while interpreting the case in M.Nagaraj
(supra), the two-Judge Bench has observed:
“10. In M.Nagaraj case, this Court while upholding
the constitutional validity of the Constitution (77th
Amendment) Act, 1995 and the Constitution (85th
Amendment) Act, 2001, clarified the position that it
would not be necessary for the State Government
to frame rules in respect of reservation in promotion
with consequential seniority, but in case the State
Government wanted to frame such rules in thisCWP  No. 17280 of 2011 12
regard, then it would have to satisfy itself by
quantifiable data that there was backwardness,
inadequacy of representation in public employment
and overall administrative inefficiency and unless
such an exercise was undertaken by the State
Government, the rule relating to reservation in
promotion with consequential seniority could not be
introduced.”
40. In the said case, the State Government had not
undertaken any exercise as indicated in M. Nagaraj
(supra). The two-Judge Bench has noted three conditions
in the said judgment. It was canvassed before the Bench
that exercise to be undertaken as per the direction in M.
Nagaraj (supra) was mandatory and the State cannot,
either directly or indirectly, circumvent or ignore or refuse
to undertake the exercise by taking recourse to the
Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act providing for
reservation for promotion with consequential seniority.
While dealing with the contentions, the two-Judge Bench
opined that the State is required to place before the Court
the requisite quantifiable data in each case and to satisfy
the Court that the said reservation became necessary on
account of inadequacy of representation of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in a particularCWP  No. 17280 of 2011 13
class or classes of posts, without affecting the general
efficiency of service. Eventually, the Bench opined as
follows:-
“66. The position after the decision in M. Nagaraj
case is that reservation of posts in promotion is
dependent on the inadequacy of representation of
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and Backward Classes and subject to the
condition of ascertaining as to whether such
reservation was at all required.
67. The view of the High Court is based on the
decision in M. Nagaraj case as no exercise was
undertaken in the terms of Article 16(4-A) to acquire
quantifiable data regarding the inadequacy of
representation of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe communities in public services.
The Rajasthan High Court has rightly quashed the
notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 25.4.2008
issued by the State of Rajasthan providing for
consequential seniority and promotion to the
members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe communities and the same does not call for
any interference.”
40.1. After so stating, the two- Judge Bench affirmed the
view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan.CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 14
41. As has been indicated hereinbefore, it has been
vehemently argued by the learned senior counsel for the
State and the learned senior counsel for the Corporation
that once the principle of reservation was made applicable
to the spectrum of promotion, no fresh exercise is
necessary. It is also urged that the efficiency in service is
not jeopardized. Reference has been made to the Social
Justice Committee Report and the chart. We need not
produce the same as the said exercise was done regard
being had to be the population and vacancies and not to
the concepts that have been evolved in M. Nagaraj
(supra). It is one thing to think that there are statutory
rules or executive instructions to grant promotion but it
cannot be forgotten that they were all subject to the
pronouncement by this Court in Vir Pal Singh Chauhan
(supra) and Ajit Singh (II) (supra). We are of the firm view
that a fresh exercise in the light of the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj (supra) is a categorical
imperative. The stand that the constitutional amendments
have facilitated the reservation in promotion with
consequential seniority and have given the stamp of
approval to the Act and the Rules cannot withstand close
scrutiny inasmuch as the Constitution Bench has clearly
opined that Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) are enabling CWP  No. 17280 of 2011 15
provisions and the State can make provisions for the
same on certain basis or foundation. The conditions
precedent have not been satisfied. No exercise has been
undertaken. What has been argued with vehemence is
that it is not necessary as the concept of reservation in
promotion was already in vogue. We are unable to accept
the said submission, for when the provisions of the
Constitution are treated valid with certain conditions or
riders, it becomes incumbent on the part of the State to
appreciate and apply the test so that its amendments can
be tested and withstand the scrutiny on parameters laid
down therein.”
In LPA No. 1749 of 2011 titled as State of Haryana and
others vs. Kiran Bala and another, decided on 26.09.2011, this
Court while deciding the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana
against the judgment dated 28.04.2011 passed by the learned Single
Judge in CWP No. 8318 of 2010 wherein the orders denying the
benefit of stepping up of their pay at par with the juniors belonging to
the reserved category who were promoted earlier to them on account
of accelerated promotion were set aside on the ground that the
respondents were unable to justify their action of granting the benefit
of 85
th
Amendment Act of 2009 vide instructions dated 16.03.2006
being contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases ofCWP  No. 17280 of 2011 16
Ajit Singh Janjua (supra) and M. Nagaraj (supra). The Division
Bench of this Court has also observed in its order dated 26.09.2011
that in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
M. Nagaraj's case (supra), State of Haryana did not carry out any
exercise for ascertaining the factors noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court for grant of accelerated seniority and promotion pursuant to the
85
th
Constitutional Amendment to the reserved categories.
In view of the above, this Court has no option and
hesitation to hold that the decision of the Government of Haryana, as
circulated through its instructions dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure P-8),
granting accelerated seniority to the scheduled caste employees as a
consequence of promotion under the reservation policy, is ultra vires
as the same runs counter to the dictum in M. Nagaraj’s case (supra)
and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed.
Instructions dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure P-8) are hereby quashed.
Impugned orders dated 16.09.2010 (Annexure P-5) and 17.09.2010
(Annexure P-6) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for stepping up
of their pay at par with their junior Sh. Amar Singh, Accounts Clerk,
being based on and consequential to instuctions dated 16.03.2006
also cannot sustain and are hereby quashed.
Petitioners are held entitled to stepping up of their pay at
par with Sh. Amar Singh from the date of their promotion to the post
of Accounts Clerk. The consequential benefits be released to theCWP  No. 17280 of 2011 17
petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
August 07, 2012 JUDGE
pjCWP  No. 17280 of 2011 18

Prayer in this petition is for grant of increment of higher responsibility on promotion to the post of Lecturer from the post of Master.

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
CASE STATUS INFORMATION SYSTEM

Click Here to View Judgment

Case Status :  DISPOSED

Status of          CIVIL WRIT PETITION   3918        of    2012     MADAN MOHAN AND ORS                 Vs.                  STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Pet's Adv.     :   UMESH NARANG                    Date of Disposal :     Thursday, March 01, 2012 Last Listed On :     Thursday, March 01, 2012 List Type :  Urgent      FIR No. :   NO FIR DETAILS AVAILABLE / NOT A CRIMINAL CASE     Category :  GOVT SERVICE (HY)-sb      Bench for Next Hearing Dt :  MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,---,---     Bench Sl. No : 125      Bench for Last Hearing Dt :  MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,---,---     Bench Sl. No : Not Available      CONNECTED APPLICATION (S)   CM   5610-CWP    of  2012 CONNECTED MATTER (S) No Connected Cases.      Case Updated on:   Thursday, March 01, 2012  C.W.P No.3918 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P No.3918 of 2012 Date of Decision : 01.03.2012 Madan Mohan and others ...PETITIONERS Vs. State of Haryana and others ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate, for the petitioners. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for grant of increment of higher responsibility on promotion to the post of Lecturer from the post of Master. According to the petitioners, this Court had earlier adjudicated this matter and allowed the writ petition i.e. CWP No.17301 of 2000 titled as Swaran Singh vs. State of Haryana, vide its judgment dated 21.02.2002 (Annexure P-2), against which respondent-State preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15182 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure P-3). On this basis, the petitioners have claimed the relief in the present writ petition. For this, the petitioners have served a legal notice dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure P- 5) but till date, no decision thereon has been conveyed to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2 to consider the same within some specified time and pass a speaking order thereon. Without going into the merits of the case or commentingC.W.P No.3918 of 2012 -2- thereon, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana respondent No. 2 to consider the legal notice dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure P-5) served by the petitioners on him and take a decision thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioners are held entitled to the claim made by them, the consequential benefits be released to them within a further period of two months. 01.03.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) adhikari JUDGE

for grant of higher responsibility on promotion to the post of Master from the post of JBT and C&V TeacheR.

OFFICE OF DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Order No.: 17/70-2012 HRM-1 (5) Dated, Panchkula, the S o` ' 2- 6 1-2--
Whereas Sh. Madan Mohan and others filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 3918 of 2012
before Hon'ble High Court praying for grant of higher responsibility on promotion to the post of
Master from the post of JBT and C&V Teacher. The petitioners approached Hon'ble High Court
to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them an additional increment for
discharging the duties and functions of higher responsibilities under Rule 4.4 (a) of the Punjab
Civil Service Rules, Vol.-1 part-1. The writ petition came for hearing before Hon'ble High Court
on 01.03.2010 and Hon'ble Court pleased to pass the following order:
"According to the petitioners, this Court had earlier adjudicated this matter and
allowed the writ petition i.e. CWP No.17301 of 2000 titled as Swaran Singh vs. State of
Haryana, vide its judgment dated 21.02.2002 (Annexure P-2), against which respondent-State
preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No. 15182 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 19.03.2010
(Annexure P-3). On this basis, the petitioners have claimed the relief in the present writ
petition. For this, the petitioners have served a legal notice dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure P-5)
but till date, no decision thereon has been conveyed to the petitioners. Counsel for the
petitioners contends that the petitioners, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issuea
to the Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2 to
consider the same within some specified time and pass a speaking order thereon.
Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner and Director General, School Education,
Haryana respondent No. 2 to consider the legal notice dated 16.08.2011(Annexure P-5) served
by the petitioners on him and take a decision thereon within a period of  three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioners are held entitled to the
claim made by them, the consequential benefits be released to them within a further period of
two months."That in compliance of the above said directions of Hon'ble High Court, the records of the
petitioners has been sorted out. It has found the name of the petitioners with their service details
are given below as under:-
Petitione
r No.
Name of the
Petitioners
Date of joining
as JBT with
Bask Pay
Date of
promotion
as HT/
ACP with
basic pay
Date of
promotion as
Master with
Basic Pay
Remarks if any
Madan
Mohan, GMS
Gairatpur
Bass, Block
Sohna District
Gurgaon
27-11-1997
Scale 4500-
7000 (PB-2 &
GP 4200)
l'' ACP
awarded
w.e.f.
1.12.2007
Scale PB-2
& GP 4600
18-01-2008,
Math Master
Seale PB-2 &
GP 4600
Petitioner has
already availed
higher pay scale in
the form of 1 s` ACP
F.D. Instructions
dated 09.04.2010
applicable
Manoj Kumar,
SS Master
01-02-1999
Scale 4500-
7000 (PB-2 &
GP 4200)
1' ACP
awarded
w.e.f.
01.02.2009
Scale PB-2
& GP 4600
06-12-2010
SS Master
Scale PB-2 &
GP 4600
.
-doRajinder
Singh, SS
Master, GMS
Mirjapur,
Block Patodi,
District
Gurgaon
04-02-1999
Scale 4500-
7000 (PB-2 &
GP 4200)
1st ACP
awarded
w.e.f.
01.03.2009
Scale PB-2
& GP 4600
17-01-2011
SS Master
Scale PB-2 &
GP 4600
-doSurender Lal,
SS Master,
GSSS
Manesar
District
Gurgaon
01-02-1999
Scale 4500-
7000 (PB-2 &
GP 4200)
1st ACP
awarded
w.e.f.
01.02.2009
Scale PB-2
& GP 4600
01-07-2011
SS Master
Scale PB-2 &
GP 4600
-d -
Ashok Kumar,
SS Master,
GHS Balewa,
Block Patodi,
District
Gurgaon
21-11-1995
Scale 4500-
7000 (PB-2 &
GP 4200)
lst ACP
awarded
w.e.f.
01.12.2005
Scale PB-2
& GP 4600
03-07-2009
SS Master
Scale PB-2 &
GP 4600
-doPawan Kumar,
SS Master,
GHS Patti
Station Block
Faruq Nagar,
District
Gurgaon
08-03-1999
Scale 4500-
7000 (PB-2 &
GP 4200)
1st ACP
awarded
w.e.f.
01.04.2009
Scale PB-2
& GP 4600
06-12-2010
SS Master
Scale PB-2 &
GP 4600
-do-
7. Vinod Kumar,
SS Master,
GHS Patti
Station, Block
Faruq Nagar,
District
Gurgaon
27-11-1995
Scale 4500-
7000 (PB-2 &
GP 4200)
HT
11.02.2004
Pay Scale
5500-9000
06-10-2010
SS Master,
respectively,
Scale 5500-
9000 (PB-2 &
GP-4600)
Already got
additional benefit at
the time of
promotion as H.T.
Moreover the new
promotion has been
granted on the basis
of JBT seniority,
_,
W:5'.444014014101ftwavManoj Kumar,
SS Master,
09-03-1999
Scale 4500-
7000 (PB-2 &
GP 4200)
1St ACP
awarded
w.e.f.
01.04.2009
Scale PB-2
& GP 4600
07-12-2010
SS Master
Scale PB-2 &
GP 4600
-
Petitioner has
already availed
higher pay scale in
the form of I' ACP
F.D. Instructions
dated 09.04.2010
applicable
Sunita, SS 12-03-1997 1S' ACP 26-10-2010 -doMistress, Scale 4500- awarded S. S. Mistress
GGMS Patli, 7000 (PB-2 & w.e.f. Scale PB-2 &
Block Farukh GP 4200) 01.04.2007 GP 4600
Nagar, District Scale PB-2
Gurgaon & GP 4600
10. Maha Nand, 01-12-1997 1s` ACP 27-06-2008 as Petitioner has
SS Master, Scale 4500- awarded HT, 20-12- already availed
GSSS 7000 (PB-2 & w.e.f. 2010 as SS higher pay scale in
Budhera,
District
GP 4200) 01.12.2007
Scale PB-2
Master Scale
PB-2 & GP
the form of 1 S`
Moreover, the
Gurgaon. & GP 4600 4600 promotion to SS
Master has been
granted on the basis
of seniority on the
post of JBT.
1 1 . Satish Kumar, 05-03-1999 HT 15-06-2007 as Petitioner has
Math Master, Scale 4500- 15.06.2007 HT, 24-01- availed higher pay
GHS Nanu 7000 (PB-2 & PB-2 & GP 2008 as Math scale in the form of
Kalan, Block
Pataudi,
District
Gurgaon
GP 4200) 4600 Master Scale
PB-2 & GP
4600
HT. Moreover, the
promotion to SS
Master has been
granted on the basis
of seniority on the
post of JBT.
Shallu Devi, 28-11-1997 lst ACP 18-01-2008 as Petitioner has
SS Mistress, Scale 4500- awarded Math Master already availed
GGHS 7000 (PB-2 & w.e.f. Scale PB-2 & higher pay scale in
Wazirabad,
Block &
GP 4200) 01.12.2007
Scale PB-2
GP 4600
.
the form of 1° ACP.
District
Gurgaon
& GP 4600 F.D. instructions
dated 09.04.2010
applicable
Mantosh 05-02-1999 1st ACP 30-06-2010 as -doKumar, SS Scale 4500- awarded SS Master
Master, GMS 7000 (PB-2 & w.e.f. Scale PB-2 &
Judola, Block GP 4200) 01.03.2009 GP 4600
Faruq Nagar,
District
Scale PB-2
& GP 4600
Gurgaon
Jai Parkash, 26-11-1997 HT 01-11-2010 Petitioner has
Master, GMS
Mirchehri
Scale 4500-
7000 (PB-2 &
05
09-05-2005
93+406 -0 G348P00 availed higher pay
scale in the form of
Block Babain,
District
GP 4200)
5500-9000 HT. Moreover, the
promotion to SS
Kurukshetra Master has been
granted on the basis
of seniority on the
post of JBT.
Kaushalaya 27-11-1997 HT 21-10-2010 -doDevi, SS Scale 4500- 9300-34800
Master, GSSS 7000 (PB-2 & 05-02-2004 +4600 GP
Dudhla- orMorthla,
District
Kurukshetra
GP 4200) 5500-9000
Kulvinder
Singh, SS
16.03.1999
Scale 4500-
1st ACP
awarded
07.12.2010 SS
Master
Petitioner has
already availed
Master, GMS 7000 PB-2 & w.e.f. higher pay scale in
Imligarh GP-4200 01.04.2009 9300-34800 the form of 1 s` ACP.
(Rohtak)
PB-2 & GP-
+4600 GP Moreover, the
promotion to SS
4600 under
1 st ACP
Master has been
granted on the basis
of seniority on the
post of JBT
Dalbir Singh,
Hindi Teacher
S/o Panna Lal,
GHS Meoli,
Block Pundri
As JBT
18.10.1995
Scale 4500-
7000
2nd .ACP
Awarded
w.e.f. 01-
01-2012 GP
4800 Under
HT 5500/9000
31-12-2001
Hindi Techer
Higher Pay Scale
awarded w.e.f.
01-01-2012 in the
form of 2nd ACP.
District rule 13 to
24.01.2008 F.D. Instructions
Kaithal the post
JBT in pay
5500-9000
dated 09.04.2010
applicable
9300/34800
and on the
basis of
stagnation in
pay scale of
PB-2, GP
4600
Lakhvinder As JBT 1st ACP Promotion as Petitioner has
Singh, Hindi 23.11.95 Awarded as Hindi Teacher availed higher pay
Teacher S/o a JBT w.e.f. 25-01-2008 in scale in the form of
Balwant
Singh, GHS
4500-7000 01-12-2005 scale
5500/9000
HT. Moreover, the
promotion to SS
Pharal, Block
Pundri,
District
Kaithal
-
Master has been
granted on the basis
of seniority on the
post of JBT.
Baini Ram. As JBT l't ACP Promotion as -doHindi Teacher
S/o Ram
14.01.1994 Awarded as
a JBT w.e.f.
Hindi Teacher
15-02-2007 in
Chander, GHS 4500-7000 01-02-2004 scale
Kawartan,
block Siwan,
District
5450-8000
5500/9000
Kaithal
Ram Kumar,
SS Master S/o
As JBT
21.08.1998
1st ACP
Awarded
Promotion as
S.S Master
Petitioner has
already availed
Lachhman
Dass, GHS
Chuhar Majra
Block
DistrictPundri,
4500-7000
01.09.2008
9300-34800
GP 4600
01.07.2010
9300-34800
higher pay scale in
the form of 1 st ACP.
Moreover, the
promotion to SS
Kaithal Master has been
granted on the basis
of seniority on the
post of JBT.
Raj inder As JBT w.e.f. 1 51 ACP Promotion as -doParshad, SS
Master GHS
29.01.1999,
4500-7000
granted
w•e.f.
S.S Master
08.12.2010
Dariyapur 01.02.2009
(Bhiwani)
9300-34800
PB-2 +GP
<r
44600 1
Satyawan
Singh, SS
Master, GHS
Singhdaragho,
Block HansiHisar
As JBT w.e.f.
17.11.1995,
4500-7000
lst ACP
granted
w•e.f.
01.12.2005
PB-2 +GP
5450-8000
Revised Pay
fixed in PB-
2 & GP-
4600 w.e.f.
01.01.2006
Promotion as
S.S Master
11.07.2006
9300-34800
-doRam Niwas
S.S Master,
GSSS Kosli,
Block Nahar,
District
Rewari
As JBT w.e.f.
10.03.1999,
4500-7000
.
13.06.2007
HT Pay
Scale 5500-
9000
Promotion as
S.S Master 24-
12-2010
Petitioner has
availed higher pay
scale in the form of
HT. Moreover, the
promotion to SS
Master has been
granted on the basis
of seniority on the
post of JBT.
Dalip Singh
S.S. Master,
GSSS Sukh
Chain, District
Sirsa.
As JBT w.e.f.
18.01.1994,
4500-7000
..
l' ACP
awarded
w•e.f.
01.02.2004
,5450-8000
Revised Pay
fixed in PB-
2 & GP-
4600 w.e.f
01.01.2006
Promotion as
S.S Master 02-
02-2008
Petitioner has
already availed
higher pay scale in
the form of l' ACP.
Moreover, the
promotion to SS
Master has been
granted on the basis
of seniority on the
post of JBT.
Pawan Kumar
S.S Master,
GHS
Alakpura,
Block
Bhiwani
Khera, District
Bhiwani
As JBT w.e.f.
29.01.1999,
4500-7000
..
1 31 ACP
granted
w•e.f.
01.02.2009
PB-2 & GP-
4600
Promotion as
S.S Master 12-
05-2011
-doThe similar matter of additional increment of higher responsibilities came before Hon' b le
Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No. 6992 of 2004, titled State of Haryana & others versus
Partap Singh & others. Thg judgment dated 22/09/2006 as pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in this Civil Appeal is, hereby, reproduced as under-
.
"In all these cases, the basic question involved is whether the respondents herein  are
entitled to the benefit of Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (hereinafter to be referred
to as the "Rules"), Volume-I, Part-I or not?
For convenient disposal of these cases, the brief facts given in C.A. No. 6305 of 2004
State of Haryana & Anr. v. Tarlochan Lal & Ors. are taken into consideration. The writ
petitioners were appointed as J.B.T. teachers in the Haryana Education Department.  They
acquired higher qualifications of B.A3 Inter B.Ed, during the course of their service. A6
notification was issued on 23.7.1957 to the effect that the teachers who have acquired higher
qualiftcations shall be granted higher grade. The writ petitioners who acquired higher
qualifications were given the grade of Social Study Master and subsequently when they were
promoted as Social Study 1Waiter they were granted one increment on account of discharge of
higher responsibility from the date of promotion as Social Study Master and their initial pay in
the promotional grade was fixed under Rule 4.4. Subsequently, the State Government decided
that grant of increment on account of discharge of higher qualifications could not be granted
to the Social Study Masters, the Drawing and Disbursing Officers withdrew the said
increments. The claim of the writ petitioners was that since the increment had been granted
because they were discharging higher responsibility while teaching higher classes in schools,
therefore, under Rule 4.4 of the Rules they were entitled to the said increment and it cannot be
withdrawn.
The matter was contested by the State appellants before the High Court and a plea was
taken that it is immaterial whether the writ petitioners teach in Class VI or Class X , that does
not make any difference, it does not involve discharging of higher responsibility and they were
not promoted on administrative posts. It was also pointed out that they had already been
granted higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualification and therefore, they are not entitled
to one additional increment or pay fixation under Rule 4.4 of the Rules. It was not disputed
that before promotion which was subsequently granted to the writ petitioners, they were
teaching Class I to Class V and on their acquiring higher qualification, they were givers the
grade of Masters and they were asked to teach the students of Class VI to Class X. The
contention of the writ petitioners before the High Court was that since they were discharging
the duties of higher responsibility i.e. for teaching the students of Class VI to Class X,
therefore, they were entitled to one additional increment and fixation of pay under Rule 4.4.
It may be relevant to mention here that the circular dated 23.7.1957 was subsequently
modified by the State of Haryana vide Notification dated 9.3.1990 and thereby it was clarified
in para 6 of the said circular that the benefit which was given in terms of para 2 of  'the
Punjab Government letter dated 23.7.1957 or any subsequent letters/ notifications issued by
the State Government, the mastersAeachers in the Education Department will be placed in the
scales of pay of their respective categories to which they are appointed against the sanctioned
posts and mere possession/acquiring of higher qualifications will not entitle them
automatically to claim higher pay scales, meaning thereby that after issuance  of this
notification, acquisition of higher qualification would not entitle the benefit of  higher pay
scale i.e. Masters' pay scale. In these writ petitions which were filed in 1998 before the High
Court, perhaps this circular of the State Government dated 9.3.1990 was not brought to the
notice of the Court. Be that as it may, in view of the changed policy of the State of Haryana,
the JBT teachers who acquired higher qualifications were not entitled to the higher pay scale
of Masters. The State Government did not take any steps in pursuance to this circular.
Therefore, by virtue of the earlier circular dated 23.7.1957 those teachers continued in the
higher pay scale of masters. Subsequently they were promoted to the post of Masters, they
again sought the benefit of one more increment by filing writ petitions. But it was not brought
to the notice of the Court that their continuation in the pay scale of Masters was against thepolicy but they were allowed to continue in the Masters' pay scale and when the regular
promotion to the post of Master was made, they claimed re-fixation of pay scale as per Rule
4.4 of the Rules and that too was allowed by the High Court de hors the fact that the earlier
circular dated 23.7.1957 has since been clarified by the State Government in the subsequent
circular dated 9.3.1990. It was also pointed out by the State Government by filing an affidavit
by Shri Dayal Singh Sangwan, Budget Officer (Schools) before this Court that though these
writ petitioners were granted pay scale of Masters while working on a lower post of JBT
teachers, on acquiring higher qualification of B.A., B.Ed. in terms of the aforesaid circular
dated 23.7.1957 but they were not appointed or promoted to the post of Masters. They were of
course drawing the pay scale of Masters but no regular promotion was given to them.  Now
regular promotion having been given, they cannot claim fixation of pay in terms of Rule 4.4 of
the Rules because they are already in the same pay scale of  Masters. It was also pointed out
that this will result in heart burning amongst the direct recruits who have been working as
Masters for longer period but would be getting lesser pay than those like the respondents if the
impugned judgment is upheld. It was also pointed out that the respondents were already
getting the functional pay scale of the promotion post of Masters while working in the cadre of
JBT teachers and the pay was also fixed in the higher pay scale and thus on their actual
promotion to the post of Masters they are not entitled to re-fix their pay by granting one
additional increment. Since the respondents were already getting the functional pay scale  of
the promotional post from the date of acquiring the qualifications of the promotional post of
Masters, therefore, there is no question of granting the benefit of Rule 4.4 of the Rules to the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously submitted that once the respondents while
working as JBT teachers having been granted higher pay scale  of Masters and now the
regular promotion order was issued, it would not be possible to grant them one more
increment while fixing their pay in the promotional post of Master. The submission of learned
counsel for the appellants appears to be justified. Since the respondents herein were already
functioning in the pay scale of Masters and it was nothing but regularization of their pay
which they were not entitled to because of the change in the policy but they were allowed to
continue and now when the regular promotion is sought to be given to them they cannot get
the double benefit of fixation of pay. As per the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of  the State
Government by Sh. Dayal Singh Sangwan, Budget Officer (Schools) in the Directorate of
Secondary Education, Haryana, it appears that the respondents on acquiring the higher
qualifkations were granted one additional increment though they were not entitled because by
that time the policy has been changed in 1990 but nobody challenged the earlier judgments by
which the Court allowed them to continue in the functional pay scale of Masters. Now,
because of regular promotion order being issued for the post of Masters, it only amounts to
regularization of the pay scale which they were already drawing i.e. pay scale  of Masters.
Thus, granting of one more increment because of regularization of the respondents by
promoting them to the post of Masters, would not entitle them the double benefit, though they
have already got one increment on acquiring the higher educational qualifications and nowon regular promotion being given in the Masters' pay scale in which they were already
working, they cannot claim another benefit. Rule 4.4 reads as under:
"4.4. The initial substantive pay of a Government employee who is appointed
substantively to a post on a
time-scale of pay is regulated as follows:-
(a) If he holds a lien on a permanent post, other than a tenure post, or would hold lien
on such a post, had his, lien not been suspendedwhen appointment to the new post involves the assumption  of duties or
responsibilities of greater importance (as interpreted for the purposes of rule 4.13) than these
attaching to such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay the stage  of the time-scale next
above his, substantive pay in respect of the old post;
when appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption, he will draw
as initial pay the stage of the time-scale which is equal to his substantive pay in respect of the
old post, or, if there is no such stage, the stage next below that pay plus personal pay equal to
the difference, and in either case will continue to draw that pay until such time as he would
have received an increment in the time scale  of the old post or for the period after which an
increment is earned in the time-scale of the new post, whichever is less. But if the minimum of
the time-scale of the new post is higher than his substantive pay in respect of the old post he
will draw that minimum as initial pay.
(iii) When appointment to the new post is made on his own request under rule 3.17 (a)
and maximum pay in the time-scale of that post is less than his substantive pay in respect of
the old post, he will draw that
maximum as initial pay."
The above rule says that when appointment to the new post involves the assumption  of
duties or
responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to such permanent  post, the
incumbent will draw as initial pay the stage of time scale next above his substantive pay in
respect of the old post meaning thereby that the promotion which involves responsibilities of
greater importance then in that case the incumbent will draw as initial pay the stage  of timescale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post. That means he will be entitled to
one increment in the old post. But in the present case, the respondents are already drawing the
pay scale of the post of Master i.e. higher post As such, where is the question of  granting
them one increment further now? Under rule 4.4 it could have been possible to grant them
fixation if they were continuing in the old scale of JBT teachers and on their promotion to the
post of Master, then certainly they would have been entitled to fixation of pay giving them the
initial-pay the stage of time scale next above their substantive pay in respect of the old post.
But they are already fixed in the pay scale of higher post of Master which though legitimately
they were not entitled to because of the change in the policy but they continued in the higher
pay scale despite the change in the policy and the Government did not take any further steps to
put the house in proper order. Be that as it may, since the respondents were drawing the
higher pay scale on acquiring higher educational qualifications, i.e. the Master's  pay scale,
and now only regular orders have been passed, promoting them as Master, there is no9
iuestion of again fixing them next above their substantive pay in respect of the old post. They
are not holding the old post any more and they were not drawing the salary of JBT teachers
i.e. the old post. Therefore, there is no question of granting them the initial pay the stage of
time scale next above their substantive pay in respect of the old post.
In this connection, a reference may be made to the decision of this Court, in the case of State
of Haryana & Ors. v. Sumitra Devi & Ors., reported in 120041 12 SCC 322. wherein the
earlier decisions of this Court on similar controversy were reviewed and it was observed in
paragraph 5 of the judgment as follows :
"It is, therefore, not a case where the petitioners had acquired a qualification prior to
9.3.1990 while acting as teachers or masters. The circular letter dated 9.3.1990 clearly states
that a higher scale of pay would not be admissible to them despite holding a higher
qualification having been appointed on a lower post. Such higher scale of pay was admissible
only to such teachers/ masters who had enhanced their educational qualification during the
course of service. The petitioners, therefore, were not entitled to higher scale of pay. The
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that keeping in view the fact that persons
having similar qualification are getting higher scales of pay, as such this Court should not
interfere with the impugned judgment. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be
accepted for more than one reason. As the persons who'have been granted higher scales of
pay enhanced their qualification while holding their offices they had been allowed to continue
to get a higher scale of pay in view of the concession made by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State. This Court, both in Wazir Singh and Kamal Singh Saharwat as
indicated hereinbefore, in np uncertain terms held that even such holders of such offices
would not automatically be entitled to, on acquisition of a higher qualification, a higher scale
of pay. The petitioners, as noticed, already had higher qualification and thus not entitled to
benefit of any circular whatsoever. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not been taken
into consideration by the High Court. Furthermore, even an order cannot be passed under
Article 142 of the Constitution which will be contrary to the statute or statutory rules."
In this case, the respondents were in the pay scale of JBT teachers and similar claim
was made. This was negatived by this Court. Apart from this, there is another direct decision
on the similar issue, in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, reported
in (1998] 5 SCC 242, wherein Fundamental Rules 22(1)(a)(1) came up for consideration
before this Court. In this case, the respondent was a Junior Engineer In the pay scale of Rs.
1640-2900/- and he was granted the pay scale of Assistant Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.
2000-3500/-. The respondent received the same benefit in advance while working as Junior
Engineer on completion of 15 years service and not actually functioning as Assistant
Engineer. The respondent was held not entitled to further increment & fixation on promotion
to the post of Assistant Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-. In that context, their
Lordships held as follows:
" The respondent having received the same benefit in advance, while working as
Junior Engineer and while not actually functioning as an Assistant Engineer, is not entitled to
the same benefit of fresh fitment in the scale of Rs.2000-3 500 when he is promoted as
Assistant Engineer. This is because on actual promotion as Assistant Engineer, he is not beingfated into the "time scale of the higher post" as stated in FR 22 (I) (a) (1). That situation was
already over when he got benefit on completion of 15 years. Further, the respondent is a
junior officer in the category of Junior Engineers' and he has already got the benefit of the FR
on completion of 15 years. If he is to be given a second benefit on the basis of the same FR,
then he would be getting more than his seniors, who might have got promoted earlier and
might have got benefit of FR 22(1) (a)(1) only once. Such an anomaly is not intended by FR
22(1) (a) (1)."
Here in the present case, the difference is that the respondents are getting the higher
pay scale i.e. Master pay scale, on acquiring higher educational qualification though in fact
they were not promoted to the post of Masters. In the case of Ashoke Kumar Banerjee (supra)
functional pay of Assistant Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- was granted to
incumbent on completion of 15 years of service. Inj identical situation, the Court declined to
grant re-fixation of pay as P er FR 22(1)(a)(1) and same is the position in the present case.
When the respondents were already getting the; functional pay  of Masters while working as
JBT teachers, now they have been promoted in the pay scale of Masters. Therefore, they
cannot get another fixation of pay which would amount to double benefit to the persons who
are already working as Masters. Judicial fiat cannot create anomalous position against the
statute. Hence, we allow all these appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court. However, whatever benefits, if any, received by the respondents would
not be recovered and they will not be entitled to fixation under Rule 4.4  of the Rules. No order
as to costs."
Again in a bunch of Civil Writ Petitions, mainly No. 3790 of 2006 titled Neelam Bali
and others versus State of Punjab and others, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court vide its decision dated 06.03.2009 has opined the same. The operative part
of this judgment is, hereby reproduced as under:
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the petitioners, who were working as
JBT/C & V Cadre (Hindi/Punjabi Teachers etc) in the same pay scale as that of the
promotional post of Master/Mistresses would not be entitled to the grant of one additional
increment on their promotion to the post of Master/Mistresses in the same pay scale on the
ground of assuming higher responsibilities, especially in view of  the Instructions dated
22.8.2006 (Annexure R.3) whereby the Administrative Department has categorically stated
that their such aforesaid promotion does not confer any higher responsibility upon them. The
validity of the Instructions dated 22.8.2006 (Annexure R.3), which is challenged in one of the
connected writ petitions, is thus upheld.
Therefore, in view of the above, the main petition bearing CWP No.3790 of 2006 is
dismissed with no order as to costs."11
The Finance department Haryana, Chandigarh has considered the same facts and issued
Memo No. 2/102/2009-2PR (FD), Dated Chandigarh, the 9 th April, 2010. The same authority
issued again guidelines regarding litigation policy vides its memo No. 8/10/2011-3PR(FD)  dated
Chandigarh the 15 th December 2011.
Considering all the facts mentioned above the petitioners have  not filed any re
that the petitioners-presentation and further it is also crystal clear from the table mentioned above
have already been granted higher pay scale in the form of JST Scale or Assured Career
Progression (ACP) Scales, therefore, they are not entitled to claim additional  increment on their
promotion on the post of Head Teacher.
Keeping in view, Civil Services Rules and the judgments of the Hon'ble High
Court and the Supreme Court of India read with instructions issued by the Finance Department
Haryana, the petitioners' claim for granting them increment on promotion is not sustainable,
therefore, the legal notice dated 16.08.2011 has no merits and deserves to be rejected.
I pass an order accordingly.
Director Elements ducation Haryana,
Panchkula
Endst. No. Dated:-
A copy is forwarded to the following information:-
The District Elementary Education Officer, Rohtak,  Bhiwani, Rewari,
Kurukshetra, Sirsa, Gurgaon, Kaithal, Hisar.
Madan Mohan, Maths Master S/o Cinta Ram, GMS Gairatpur Bass, Block
Sohna District Gurgaon.
Kulvinder Singh, SS Master S/o Devender Singh, GMS Imligarh, Block
Mehan, District Rohtak.
Dalip Singh, SS Master S/o Ajmeer Singh, GSSS Sukh Chain, District
Sirsa.
Dalbir Singh, Hindi Teacher S/o Parma Lal, GHS Meoli, Block Pundri
District Kaithal.
Lakhvinder Singh, Hindi Teacher S/o Balwant Singh, GHS Pharal, Block
Pundri, District Kaithal.
Satyawan Singh, SS Master S/o Nihal Singh, GHS Singhdaragho, Block
Hansi- Hisar.
Baini Ram, hindi Teacher S/o Ram Chander, GHS Kawartan,  Block Siwan,
District Kaithal.
Rajender Parshad, SS Master S/o Chander Bhan, GHS Dariapur , block
Siwan, District Bhiwani.
Pawan Kumar, SS Master S/o Kapoor Singh, GHS Alakhpura, Block
Bhiwani Khera, District Bhiwani.41111111.100
Smt. Shalu Devi , SS Mistress W/o Surender Kumar, GGHS Wazirabad..
Block-& District Gurgaon.
Ashok Kumar, SS Master S/o Ram Chander, GHS Balewa, Block. Patodi,
District Gurgaon.
Manoj Kumar, SS Master S/o Om Parkash, GHS Mahaniawas. Block
Patodi, District Gurgaon.
Satish Kumar, Maths Master S/o Jai Dayal Singh, GHS Nanu Kalan, Block
Pataudi, District Gurgaon.
15, Ram Niwas, SS Master S/o Pyeare Lal, GSSS Kosli, Block Nahar, District
Rewari.
Mantosh Kumar, SS Master S/o Ram Kishan , GMS Judola, Block Farud
Nagar, District Gurgaon.
Surender Lal, SS Master S/o Nawal Singh GSSS Manesar., District
Gurgaon.
Rajender Singh, SS Master S/o Hosiar, GMS Mirjapur, Block Patodi,
District Gurgaon.
Manoj Kumar, SS Master Sic) Munshi Ram, GMS Bhonkarkan, Block
Patodi, District Gurgaon.
Pawan Kumar, SS Master S/o Raghbir Singh, GHS Path station , Block
Faruq Nagar, District Gurgaon.
Vinod Kumar, SS Master S/o Dheer Singh, GHS Patli Station , Block
Faruq Nagar, District Gurgaon.
Smt. Sunita, SS Mistress W/o Chandan Kumar, GGMS Patli, Block
Farukh Nagar, District Gurgaon.
Mahanand , SS Master S/o Bhoop Singh, GSSS Budhera, District Gurgaon.
Ram Kumar, SS Master S/o Lachhman Dass, GHS Chuhar Majra, Block
Pundri, District Kaithal.
Jai Parkash, Master S/o Meher Chand GMS Mirchehri Block Babain,
District Kurukshetra.
Smt. Kaushalya Devi, SS Mistress W/o Jai Parkash, GSSS
Morthla, District Kurukshetra.
Head of Institution concerned.
2 .0. IT Cell.
2-41 . C14,901-okitzt 1-101-171- EP. I Cecv Qti -
For Director Elementary Education Haryana,
Panchkula
.;1;41--74
Deputy D ector Master348 7 c