Rajender Singh Nandal And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 September, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajender Singh Nandal And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 September, 2012

Bench: Surya Kant

LPA No. 511 of 2012                                           -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                    LPA No. 511 of 2012 (O&M)

                                    Date of decision: 04.09.2012


Rajender Singh Nandal and another

                                          ..... Appellants


                  Versus


State of Haryana and another


                                          ..... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

PRESENT: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.


R.P. NAGRATH, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No. 1726 of 2011 (Rajender Singh Nandal and another Vs. State of Haryana and others) whereby the claim of the appellants for counting their service rendered in the previous Department for the purpose of promotion has been rejected.

2. The appellants were working as Clerks in the Department of Employment Exchange. The Department of Excise and Taxation, Haryana, invited applications for appointment of Clerks by transfer from other Departments. The appellants applied for the said post and were LPA No. 511 of 2012 -2- appointed on transfer basis in the Excise and Taxation Department.

3. The grievance of the appellants is against condition No. 2 of the order of appointment that their previous service will not be counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority. It is contended for the appellants that no such condition was imposed while inviting applications for appointment of Clerks by transfer. In fact they have already been given the benefit of previous service towards the grant of ACP.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants at some length, we find that learned Single Judge, has rightly declined the prayer. We say so on the plain reading of Rule 11 of the Haryana Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Offices Ministerial (Group-C) Service Rules, 1981 (for short 'the Rules') relating to the seniority which reads as follows:

"Seniority-11 Seniority, inter se of members of the service shall be determined by the length of continuous service on any post in the service:-

Provided that where there are different cadres in the Service, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre.

Provided further that in the case of members appointed by direct recruitment, the order of merit determined by the Board, shall not be LPA No. 511 of 2012 -3- disturbed in fixing the seniority: Provided that further that in the case of two or more members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:-

a) a member appointed by direct recruitment shall be senior to a member appointed by promotion or by transfer;

b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer;

c) in the case of members appointed by promotion or by transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and

d) in the case of members appointed by transfer from different cadres their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then by the length of their service LPA No. 511 of 2012 -4- in the appointments and if the length of such service is also the same, the older member shall be senior to the younger member."

5. The parameters to grant ACP are different than fixing of seniority. In fact transfer is one of the recognized mode of appointment in the service, under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1981.

6. The appellants still rely upon Rule 11(c) of the aforesaid Rules, by contending that in the case of members appointed by promotion or by transfer, seniority is to be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred. This sub-rule does not support the appellants as it only pertains to the fixing of inter se seniority of the employees appointed by promotion or transfer but the general rules contained in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 11 for fixing seniority would make the proposition crystal clear. Therefore, incorporating of condition No. 2 in the appointment letter of the appellants was strictly in terms of above-stated Rules of seniority.

7. The appellants have also relied upon the appointment letter of one Sudarshan Kumar, Clerk, stating that the said official who was issued appointment letter dated 6.11.1997 (Annexure P-7) has been given seniority by counting past service rendered in the department of Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation Limited, Chandigarh. The respondent-Department has denied this allegation in the written reply in categorical terms that no such benefit has been given to aforesaid LPA No. 511 of 2012 -5- Sudarshan Kumar. The case of that Sudarshan Kumar otherwise was of absorption of surplus staff of the Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation Limited.

8. Consequently, we do not find merit in the appeal.

9. Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT )                                  ( R.P. NAGRATH )
    JUDGE                                             JUDGE


September 4, 2012
rishu

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court