Allowing Continuous Promotional Advantage To Reserved Category Employee Without Reassessing Seniority Violative Of Right To Equality: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that allowing continuous promotional advantage to 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.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking directions to the State Department to fix the pay of the Petitioner who is Senior General Employee by stepping up his pay at par with the pay the Junior Schedule Caste Category Employee on the post of Zilledar, in view of ‘catch-up rule’.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed, "This court is of the view that, in cases where a general category employee attains the same post as his junior who had earlier been promoted under the reservation policy, the 'catch-up rule' must be applied. This restores the senior’s rightful position and protects against what may otherwise constitute reverse discrimination. To allow the reserved category junior to retain a continuous promotional advantage 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. The principle of equality demands that, once parity in position is achieved, the originally senior general category employee should not be prejudiced in matters of pay, status, or further advancement. Any deviation would erode the constitutional commitment to fairness, and compromise the larger objective of balanced and inclusive governance.."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Kuldeep Sheoran.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, a general category employee, was initially appointed as Irrigation Booking Clerk/Canal Patwari in 1974 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Revenue Clerk in 1979, as Revenue Clerk in 1996, and as Zilledar in 2010. Another employee, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, entered service later in 1974 but was promoted earlier on account of reservation, and reached the posts of Assistant Revenue Clerk in 1979, Revenue Clerk in 1982, and Zilledar in 1992. Both the petitioner and the reserved category employee ultimately retired as Zilledars in 2012.

The Petitioner represented for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior on the ground that he had caught up with him on the post of Zilledar. His claim, however, was rejected primarily on the ground that 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.

Counsel for the Petitioner argued that under the law declared by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab and the court's in Charan Dass v. State of Haryana, as well as Government instructions issued subsequent to the same, a senior general category employee is entitled to stepping up of pay at par with his junior from the reserved category, once they occupy the same post. It was argued that the denial of such benefit is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset remarked that when the framers of our Constitution enshrined the guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16, their vision was to harmonize the twin objectives of democratization and administrative efficiency.

"Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, in particular, enables the State to provide for reservation in appointments or posts for backward classes who, in the State’s opinion, are not adequately represented in public services. Simultaneously, Article 335 of the Constitution imposes a constitutional obligation to consider the claims of reserved categories in recruitment and promotion, but only insofar as it remains consistent with the maintenance of efficiency in administration", the Court stated.

Stressing that Constitution mandates a delicate balance, where social justice is pursued, but not at the cost of merit or institutional integrity, it emphasized that while promoting inclusion, the system must not become a source of alienation for those who, despite sustained performance and seniority, find themselves displaced by virtue of reservation-based acceleration alone.

"Promotion, as an incident of service, is not merely about elevation, it is about recognition, fairness, and morale. The exclusion of senior general category employees from rightful consideration, merely due to the accumulated advantage of earlier reserved promotions, undermines the equality mandate", the Court stated.

It was of the view that in cases where a general category employee attains the same post as his junior who had earlier been promoted under the reservation policy, the 'catch-up rule' must be applied.

"This Court observes that the reasoning adopted in the impugned order dated 05.03.2020, that the petitioner had not regained his seniority at the stage of Revenue Clerk and that no seniority list of Zilledars was prepared, is wholly untenable. 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 Court observed.

It stated that it is sanguine of the fact that the Petitioner’s grievance is not merely about monetary parity, it is, in essence, a plea for recognition, for dignity, for fairness in the twilight of a long and honorable career in public service.

"It is an appeal that seeks to restore balance to a life spent in silent contribution to the functioning of the State and to deny him this parity, when the law is so clearly in his favour, would be to allow technicalities to overshadow justice. The Constitution of India does not permit such indifference as equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and fairness in service under Article 16 of the Constitution demand more than token acknowledgment, they require that rightful claims not be buried under bureaucratic delay or administrative omission. 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", the Court remarked.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Kailash Chander v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2025:PHHC:130994)

Click here to read/ download Order