The court reaffirmed that seniority alone does not entitle an employee to pay parity with a junior who received earlier promotion or higher pay as a result of legitimate promotion processes. Existing precedent was followed, and the court found no entitlement to “stepping up” of pay in the absence of an illegal or arbitrary action. The decision is binding within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, specifically affecting public service pay fixation cases in law enforcement and related sectors.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/19533/2002 of Banarsi Dass and Others vs State of Haryana and Others |
| CNR | PHHC010182782002 |
| Date of Registration | 05-05-5500 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab and Haryana High Court jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law |
Whether petitioners, senior to respondent No.6, are entitled to step up pay at par with the junior (respondent No.6) who was promoted earlier and placed in a higher pay scale due to circumstances of valid departmental process. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that promotion/placement of respondent No.6 followed departmental process and that his higher pay was a result of earlier promotion based on a special opportunity in the Police Training College. Seniority was subsequently reviewed, and the earlier promotions were treated as ad hoc; respondent No.6’s pay was properly refixed. The petitioners, merely by being “senior,” do not automatically become entitled to stepping up of pay unless illegality or arbitrariness is established, which was not the case. The petition was dismissed, with liberty to agitate the issue if cause survives. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners joined Haryana Police in 1965 and 1967. Respondent No.6 was deputed to Police Training College in 1980, received a special seat for a promotional course, promoted earlier than petitioners, and placed on List-D and as ASI/SI prior to petitioners. Seniority and pay were refixed via departmental order and subsequent legal remedies by respondent No.6 failed. The petitioners claimed step up, arguing seniority but respondents countered on promotional/legal grounds. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts and service/recruitment authorities within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in service matter disputes involving pay parity, step-up claims, and seniority |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that mere seniority does not entitle an employee to pay parity/stepping up if a junior is promoted earlier as per lawful process.
- Distinguishes between ad hoc and regular promotions with respect to pay fixation and claims for parity.
- Dismisses “step up” claims in the absence of demonstrable arbitrariness or illegality.
- Provides liberty for revival if cause survives, indicating that procedural dismissal does not bar fresh application if circumstances change.
- Useful precedent for government counsel and service lawyers defending pay fixation and promotion-related step up claims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The court recounted facts showing respondent No.6 was deputed to Police Training College and received earlier ad hoc promotion after clearing a special promotional course, with pay benefits following regular promotion. Seniority and pay were refixed via a formal order, and respondent No.6’s legal challenges ended unsuccessfully in both High Court and Supreme Court. The court held that the petitioners’ claim, based solely on seniority, was not sustainable under law unless promotions or pay fixation are shown to be vitiated by illegality or arbitrariness. The reasoning explicitly rejected entitlement to step-up solely on seniority when the junior’s higher pay flowed from earlier, lawfully obtained promotion and departmental processes.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought direction to step up their pay at par with respondent No.6, arguing that as seniors, they are drawing less pay than their junior colleague (respondent No.6).
- Asserts entitlement to pay parity based on seniority.
Respondent (State)
- Respondent No.6 was promoted before petitioners through proper process and accordingly became senior.
- Seniority/promotion of respondent No.6 was subject of court challenge, which failed up to the Supreme Court; actions taken were lawful.
- Pay was correctly fixed and refixed per promotions, and petitioners are not entitled to step-up since no illegality exists.
Factual Background
Petitioners joined Haryana Police in 1965 and 1967. In 1980, respondent No.6 was deputed to Police Training College and, by virtue of that posting, was allotted a special seat in a promotional course. Clearing that course, respondent No.6 was promoted as ASI in 1983 and later as SI in 1986 ahead of the petitioners. Departmental seniority was subsequently readjusted, and respondent No.6’s promotions were treated as ad hoc. Respondent No.6 challenged this but failed in court. Petitioners now claim they ought to draw at least equal pay since they are “senior” by date of joining the force.
Statutory Analysis
- Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India: Invoked jurisdiction for judicial review of service/pay fixation decisions.
- No statutory provisions were specifically interpreted in the judgment beyond application of constitutional writ jurisdiction in service matters.
Procedural Innovations
- Liberty granted to petitioners to move fresh application within six months if cause survives, showing judicial flexibility to allow reconsideration if real issues persist.
- No new procedural rules or doctrines developed regarding maintainability or evidence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies the established law regarding step-up/pay parity claims and seniority in public service.