Continuous Promotional Advantage To Reserved Category Without Reassessing Seniority Violates Right To Equality: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution serves as the cornerstone of fair and just governance.

Court stated that in the context of service promotions, this principle mandates that no employee—whether from the reserved or general category—should be placed at a permanent advantage or disadvantage once parity in position is attained.

In the present case, after 13 years, an employee retired upon attaining the age of superannuation. The Court directed the Haryana Government to step up his pay and grant other benefits, ruling that seniors cannot be denied their rightful pay, position, or recognition simply because a junior colleague was promoted earlier under the reservation policy.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "the Constitution mandates a delicate balance, where social justice is pursued, but not at the cost of merit or institutional integrity. It is this balance which the courts have time and again sought to protect. 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, it added.

The judge opined 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," the Court added.

The judge remarked that, any deviation would erode the constitutional commitment to fairness, and compromise the larger objective of balanced and inclusive governance.

The plea was filed by Kailash Chander, who held the post of Zilledar from 2010 till his retirement in 2012, challenging the whereby the authority rejected the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior Scheduled Caste category employee namely Raghubir Singh qua the post of Revenue Clerk and Zilledar with a further prayer to issue directions to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner (Senior General Employee) by stepping up his pay at par with the pay of  Raghbir Singh (Junior Schedule Caste Category Employee) on the post of Zilledar, in view of 'catch-up rule', with all consequential benefits including 18% interest on arrears.

Justice Moudgil opined 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," it added.

The judge noted that at this stage in life, when the petitioner seeks not future promotion but retrospective affirmation, the 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.

In the light of above, the Court directed to step up the pay of the petitioner at par with his junior  Raghubir Singh from the date he caught up with him on the post of Zilledar, with all consequential benefits, including arrears with an interest @ 6%, to be released within a period of three months.

Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana

Title: KAILASH CHANDER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 402

Click here to read order