Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Puran Chand vs Uoi And Ors. on 14 December, 2017
Author: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 843/2013
Date of order: 14.12. 2017
Puran Chand v. Union of India and ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge.
Appearance:
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. Sudesh Sharma, Adv.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Sadotra, CGSC.
(Oral)
1. Petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer in the Central Sericulture Research and Training Institute, Kathua, Jammu and came to be subsequently, converted into time scale Labourer vide order dated 11.01.1993 w.e.f. 01.11.1992.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India issued a circular whereby all Group-D vacant posts under the Research Service Stations were required to be filled up by absorption of casual labourers and time scale labourers on the basis of seniority subject to fulfilling the eligibility conditions prescribed for the said post. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner feels aggrieved that he was not considered for absorption against such Group-D posts and that a person junior to him had been so absorbed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents No. 5 to 7 and, in particular, respondent No. 7, namely, Gurdyal came to be absorbed, as such, even when he was junior to the petitioner.
3. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the list of casual labourers converted from time scale to Group-D posts which SWP No. 843/2013 Page 1 of 3 includes the name of respondent No. 7, Gurdyal Singh at serial No. 8. From the said document, it can be seen that respondent No. 7 was engaged as casual labourer in January, 1985, whereas the petitioner came to be engaged as causal labourer in 1983. It can, thus, be seen that whereas the petitioner was brought on time scale w.e.f 01.09.1992, the respondents have not stated anything in their reply with regard to the date when respondent No. 7 was brought on time scale. It, thus, can be seen that the petitioner was certainly senior to respondent No. 7.
4. In the response filed by the respondents, however, a stand is taken that no person junior to the petitioner has been absorbed against any of the Group-D posts. It is stated that the seniority of the casual labourers/time scale labouers is maintained Institute-wise and that the private respondents were working in the Centre at Miran Sahib where their seniority was being maintained separately.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. While it may be true that the seniority is maintained separately for different Institutes by the official respondents. Yet for the purpose of absorption of time scale casual labourers against the Group D posts, the overall seniority of the petitioner could not have been ignored. As to how the Group D posts were to be apportioned for the purpose of absorption from amongst the time scale casual labourers working in different Institutes has not been specifically dealt with by the official respondents in their response. The petitioner, in those circumstances, would have a legitimate expectation that his seniority would be given due weightage.
6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner requires to be considered keeping in view his seniority over respondent No. 7. Petitioner's case be considered against any vacant Group-D posts and effect be given from the same date as was given to respondent No. 7. Let an appropriate SWP No. 843/2013 Page 2 of 3 decision be taken within a period of six weeks' from the date a copy of this order is served upon them.
7. With the aforementioned directions, this petition along with connected MP(s) is disposed of.
( Dhiraj Singh Thakur ) Judge Jammu 14.12.2017 (Paramjeet) SWP No. 843/2013 Page 3 of 3