Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahipal Singh Mann vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 March, 2012
Civil Writ Petition No.1942 OF 2011(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1942 OF 2011(O&M)
Date of decision : 14.03.2012
Mahipal Singh Mann
....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Nikhil K.Chopra and Saurabh Arora, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondents-State.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL)
The petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 28.02.1986. During the period of probation, his services were terminated. He challenged that termination. During the pendency of the litigation, an agreement was arrived at whereby he withdrew his appeal and the Government withdrew the order of termination of his services on 09.02.1993. The petitioner thereafter represented that he should be given the benefits of the period which he remained out of service. On that Civil Writ Petition No.1942 OF 2011(O&M) 2 representation, order (Annexure P-10) was passed whereby it was decided to treat the period of absence of duty from 28.09.1987 to 25.02.1993 as duty period subject to the condition that he would not be entitled to any pay or any other financial benefit during this period as he had not worked on this post. After this order was passed, the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 20.08.1993. Again the petitioner represented that once the period which he was out of service was treated as duty period, his case for confirmation had to be considered alongwith his batch-mates. Having been declined this prayer, the petitioner has approached this Court.
In reply, the ground taken is that when the petitioner was re- instated into service he had given an affidavit that he will not claim any benefit regarding seniority or pay etc. In this connection, learned Senior counsel has argued that even after the said affidavit of the petitioner, the Government had given him all other benefits like treating the period during which he was out of service, as duty period and the only thing which had been declined to him was the pay allowances. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it would not lie in the mouth of the Government to now turn round and rely on the affidavit which was filed in the year 1993 to deny him the logical consequence of his entire period of service having been considered as duty period.
Even though learned Addl. Advocate General has sought to defend the order yet there is no answer to the argument that once the Government has treated the period of absence of duty from 28.09.1987 to 25.02.1993 as duty period his claim for consideration for confirmation cannot be denied, on the basis of an affidavit, the conditions of which have Civil Writ Petition No.1942 OF 2011(O&M) 3 been waived off by the Government voluntarily. In my opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail.
Consequently, this petition is allowed, impugned order (Annexure P-12) is set aside and direction is issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for confirmation after treating his service w.e.f. 28.02.1986 on the same parity as the claim for confirmation of his batch- mates were considered. Necessary exercise be concluded within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this orders.
(AJAY TEWARI)
March 14, 2012 JUDGE
mamta