01Facts
The petitioners, Haryana engineers posted with the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), challenged the State’s order dated 4 August 2011, which modified an earlier order granting an Assured Career Progression (ACP) scale in Pay Band 4 (PB-4).
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2They sought inclusion in the earlier list and consequential benefits; in the connected petition, the petitioners also challenged recovery for the intervening period.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2The petitioners argued that they were eligible under the Finance Department’s instructions of 19 August 2009, which limited the benefit to 20% of the relevant cadre, and that the State had incorrectly deducted 35 Superintending Engineer posts from the 20% allocation rather than from the total cadre strength.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–6The State maintained that the 20% limit applied to the total cadre, including Superintending Engineers, and that the revised orders corrected an excess grant.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8, 1002Issues
i.Whether the petitioners were entitled to the PB-4 ACP scale under the 19 August 2009 instructions, given the 20% limit on the total cadre posts.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–5, 11ii.Whether the State’s 4 August 2011 order modifying the earlier ACP grant was liable to be quashed.
pp. 1–2, 5 · ¶ 1, 6–703Law Applied
The Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008, as reflected in the applicable Finance Department instructions dated 19 August 2009, provided for the PB-4 scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with Grade Pay of Rs. 8,700 after 17 years of regular satisfactory service, subject to the benefit being limited to 20% of the total cadre posts in the specified engineering categories, including Superintending Engineers.
pp. 5–6, 10–11The judgment cites no judicial precedents; the petitioners invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
pp. 1–204Reasoning
The Court treated the instructions as requiring the 20% quota to be calculated against the full sanctioned cadre of 622 posts, including Superintending Engineers. That produced 124 eligible posts; because 35 Superintending Engineers had been granted the relevant scale, 89 posts remained for Executive Engineers.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 10–11The Court accordingly held that the State’s calculation—622 × 20% = 124, less 35 = 89—was correct, and rejected the petitioners’ proposed method of first deducting the 35 posts from the cadre total and then applying the 20% limit.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 10–11The Court also noted that the petitioners had filed no replication controverting the State’s relevant assertions.
p. 7 · ¶ 1205Holding
The Court held that the petitioners had not established entitlement to inclusion in the PB-4 ACP allocation or grounds to set aside the 4 August 2011 order.
p. 7 · ¶ 13–14Both writ petitions were dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.
p. 7 · ¶ 13–14Original Court PDF
Virinderjit Singh KhuranavsState Of Haryana & Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
