The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that maintaining continuous reservation without reassessing seniority violates constitutional equality, emphasizing that general category employees must receive fair recognition and pay parity once they reach the same post as reserved category juniors.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: In a crucial decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reinforced the principle of equality and fairness in public employment, highlighting the importance of the ‘catch-up rule’ for general category employees who attain parity with their juniors promoted under reservation.
The Court held that allowing continuous promotional advantage to a reserved category employee without reassessing seniority at the common post “would amount to ignoring the equality clauses enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
ALSO READ: Land-Grabbing Tactic Affecting Hundreds of Families: Kerala High Court Slams Waqf Board
Background of the Case
The case arose when a senior general category employee, who had served since 1974, sought to have his pay stepped up at par with a junior Scheduled Caste employee. Both ultimately held the post of Zilledar before retiring in 2012, but the junior had been promoted earlier due to reservation policies.
The petitioner’s claim was initially rejected because “he had not regained his seniority as Revenue Clerk over and above the reserved category employee, and that no seniority list of Zilledars had been prepared.”
Represented by Advocate Kuldeep Sheoran, the petitioner argued that the denial of pay parity was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, citing precedents including Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab and Charan Dass v. State of Haryana.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that
“Promotion, as an incident of service, is not merely about elevation, it is about recognition, fairness, and morale.”
It noted that while Articles 16(4) and 335 allow for reservations to promote social justice, the Constitution also seeks to maintain efficiency and fairness in administration.
In cases where a general category employee eventually attains the same post as a reserved category junior, the Court held that “the ‘catch-up rule’ must be applied. This restores the senior’s rightful position and protects against what may otherwise constitute reverse discrimination.”
Importantly, the Court rejected technical objections:
“Once the petitioner and his junior both occupied the post of Zilledar, the principle of catch-up applied automatically, irrespective of whether a formal seniority list was drawn. The benefit cannot be denied on vague or technical grounds, as doing so would perpetuate inequality in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
The judgment underscored that the grievance was not only about monetary parity but also about recognition, dignity, and fairness in the twilight of a long public service career:
“At this stage in life, when the petitioner seeks not future promotion but retrospective affirmation, this Court cannot look away since justice must not only be done, it must reach the doorstep of the petitioner with the quiet assurance that the law has not forgotten him.”
Appearance:
For the petitioner: Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate
For the State: Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana
Case Title:
KAILASH CHANDER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
CWP-26007-2021(O&M)
Read Order:
