Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 755 (PNJ)

Raj Bala v. State of Haryana

2024-04-29

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

body2024
JUDGMENT : TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. 1. The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Principal being a State Teacher Awardee, as has been given to the similarly placed employees. 2. Learned senior counsel has contended that the petitioner was appointed as S.S. Mistress in the Secondary Education Department on 22.01.1990, and was later promoted as Headmistress with effect from 22.09.2020. She superannuated from service on 30.04.2022. Being a State Teacher Awardee, she was given extension in service from 01.05.2022 to 30.04.2024, vide order dated 27.12.2022, Annexure P-3. It was under the revised guidelines and policy for State Award to Teachers-2020, issued vide memo dated 20.02.2020, Annexure P-19, providing for two years’ extension in service beyond superannuation, i.e., up to sixty years as one of the incentives for the awardees. The petitioner, accordingly, continued in service included in the seniority list issued on 10.11.2022, Annexure P-6. She represented against it and sought promotion to the post of Principal as well, vide legal notice dated 06.02.2023, Annexure P-20. It was finally decided vide impugned order, dated 28.04.2023, Annexure P-21, rejecting her case on the ground that the Department had sought clarification from the Finance Department in that regard as there was no provision for promotion in the existing rules. Learned senior counsel also contends that the impugned order is illegal being in violation of the policy which grants extension in service for all intents and purposes. It is discriminatory as well since the respondents themselves have been giving regular promotions to the teachers on extension. One such instance is that of Jaldhir Singh, Deputy District Education Officer, who was given extension in service being a State Awardee from 01.06.2022 to 31.05.2024, vide order dated 06.05.2022, Annexure P-22, and further promoted to the post of HES-I officer, vide office order dated 30.10.2023. Therefore, on this account also the petitioner’s claim could not have been rejected. 3. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, submits that there is no policy with the government to give promotion to the teachers who have been given extension in service on account of being State Teacher Awardees. A clarification to that effect has been sought from the government. As and when the same is received, appropriate action in the petitioner’s case will be taken. A clarification to that effect has been sought from the government. As and when the same is received, appropriate action in the petitioner’s case will be taken. He, however, is not in a position to deny that Jaldhir Singh was given promotion to the post of HES-I officer by the government while on extension, vide office order dated 30.10.2023. 4. Heard. 5. Facts are not in dispute that the petitioner is a State Teacher Awardee, and has been given extension in service as Headmistress up to the age of sixty years; her service has been extended from 01.05.2022 to 30.04.2024. The order giving extension, dated 27.12.2022, reads thus: Smt. Raj Bala (028526), Headmistress GHS Hansdehar (1598) Distt. Jind is hereby granted two years Extension in service w.e.f. 01.05.2022 to 30.04.2024, after attaining the age of 58 years being State Awardee. The guidelines and policy for State Award to Teachers-2020 also provides that the awardees will be given two years’ extension in service beyond superannuation, which is as under: INCENTIVES: The following incentives will be given by the Government to the State Awardee Teachers: 1. to 4. xxx xxx 5. Two years extension in service beyond superannuation i.e. upto 60 years. 6. xxx xxx Apparently, there are no conditions attached to the incentive of two years extension in service in terms of the policy so far as the service benefits are concerned. Nor does the order giving extension to the petitioner, dated 27.12.2022, incorporates any condition restricting the benefits that she will be entitled to during service. Even otherwise, extension in service amounts to lengthening an employee’s tenure of service; meaning thereby, he/she will be entitled to remain in service for a longer tenure. Unless there is any condition attached to extension, an employee remains in service for all intents and purposes, and consequently gains entitlement to all service benefits admissible to other employees. That being the case, the petitioner, who is on extension in service, cannot be denied the benefit of promotion admissible to other employees. Besides, the respondents have themselves extended the benefit to an employee similarly placed, viz., Jaldhir Singh, who stands promoted as HES-I officer while being on extension up to 3an1d .05.2024, vide office order dated 30.10.2023. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 28.04.2023, is set aside. Besides, the respondents have themselves extended the benefit to an employee similarly placed, viz., Jaldhir Singh, who stands promoted as HES-I officer while being on extension up to 3an1d .05.2024, vide office order dated 30.10.2023. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 28.04.2023, is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion on the post of Principal in accordance with law as per her seniority position, and release all due consequential benefits within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.