M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 3569 of 2008 with a prayer for issuing appropriate direction to the Respondent -State to amend the rules known as the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) Rules, 1998 by making provisions in Rule 9 of the 1998 Rules by including category of Work Shop supervisors as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 4.8.2009 has issued directions to the Respondents to consider the prayer made by the Petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, on 26.3.2010 (Annexure P -14), Respondent No. 2 -Engineer -in -Chief, Haryana has passed an order stating that the Respondent -State had framed Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 (for brevity 'the 2008 Rules') in order to remove stagnation in service. The aforesaid Rules/Scheme has been framed to ensure that all Government servants working in the State of Haryana whose cadre are not covered by any Career Progression during the entire service may get at least three financial up -gradations. The scheme ensures that no Government servant stagnates without any financial up -gradation for more than 10 years unless he has availed three financial up -gradation in his career. The competent authority for Assured Career Progression Scales is to grant them up -gradations of completion on 10, 20 and 30 years regular/satisfactory service in terms of 2008 Rules. The aforesaid order dated 26.3.2010 has now been challenged in the instant petition by urging that functional promotion for one step should also be given instead of merely granting financial up -gradation.
(2.) THE claim made by the Petitioner has been opposed. In para 2 of the preliminary submissions, the Respondents have taken the stand that Work Shop Supervisors could not be included in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer especially when they are not to suffer any monetary loss. According to the written statement, under Rule 9 read with Appendix B of the 1998 Rules only Special Foreman and Foreman Miscellaneous are entitled for appointment by promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and there is 10% quota provided by Rule 9(i) for the aforesaid two feeder cadres. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner to include the Work Shop Supervisor as a feeder cadre has been declined and reliance has been placed on the 2008 Rules. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the basic object of the judgments delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India : 1990 (Supp.) SCC 688 and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Anr. v. K.G.S. Bhatt and Anr. : (1989) 4 SCC 635 was to break the stagnation in the career of an employee so that he may not keep on working in one cadre on the same pay scale. The aforesaid object has been achieved by devising Assured Career Progression Scheme by the Respondent -State. The aforesaid Scheme was conceived initially by the Central Government, which have now been adopted by all the State Governments. The idea is to allow an employee to advance in his career and not to permit him to stagnate on one scale throughout his career. We are not able to accept the argument that permanent avenue as such must be created for an employee to work on a post of higher responsibility. There is no mandatory provision nor any such provision has been cited before us. The argument with regard to discrimination has also failed to impress us because equity can be only amongst equal and Work Shop Supervisors are not equal to Foreman Heavy Plant in the Mechanical Department itself. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for functional promotion cannot be accepted. The petition is wholly without merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.;