Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Jitender Kumar on 20 August, 2009
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
RSA No.3068 of 2009 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3068 of 2009
Date of Decision: 20.8.2009
State of Haryana and others ......Appellants
Versus
Jitender Kumar .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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?
Present: Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional AG, Haryana.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The defendants are in second appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the service rendered by the plaintiff in the Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana, from 28.12.1990 till his absorption on 2.11.1993 was ordered to be considered for determining seniority in the Directorate of Women and Child Welfare Department.
The plaintiff-respondent was appointed in the Development and Panchayat Department on 28.12.1990. In pursuance of a circular issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Haryana on 21.7.1992, options RSA No.3068 of 2009 (2) were invited from clerks and account clerks working in the Development and Panchayat Department for transfer to the newly created Directorate of Women and Child Welfare Department. In pursuance of such circular, the plaintiff gave his option and was absorbed in the Women and Child Welfare Department on 2.11.1993. At the time of absorption, it was stipulated that the seniority shall be determined later on. Subsequently, relying upon Rule 11 of the Haryana Women and Child Welfare Department Service Rules, 1997 (for short `the Rules'), the service rendered by the plaintiff prior to his absorption on 2.11.1993, was not taken into consideration. Such action was challenged by the plaintiff before the Civil Court.
Both the Courts have held that Rules relied upon by the defendants were not applicable at the time of absorption of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff having been absorbed in pursuance of the option sought by the Department, the service rendered him is to be taken into consideration for determining of seniority.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is no challenge to Rule 11 of the Rules in the suit, as in terms of the aforesaid Rules, the service rendered by the plaintiff for the period prior to his absorption, cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of seniority.
I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. In fact, no challenge was required to be made by the plaintiff to the said Rules. Both the Courts have rightly found that such Rules were notified in the year 1997 and would not be applicable in respect of the plaintiff, who was absorbed when such Rules, were not in force. RSA No.3068 of 2009 (3)
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20.8.2009 ds