Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Pal Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 April, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No.781 of 2012 (O&M) [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.781 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:01.04.2013 Bhupinder Pal Singh and others ...Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Sernior Advocate, with Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. J.S.Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7 to 10, 11 and 12.
Mr. B.S.Teji, Advocate, for the Bank.
***** Rakesh Kumar Jain. J.
The appellants has challenged order dated 07.11.2009 passed by the Managing Director of respondent No.3-Bank whereby seniority list of the Assistant Managers dated 24.01.2007 was set aside.
In brief, the appellants herein were directly recruited in the respondent No.3-Bank as Assistant Managers in the year 2001, whereas the private respondents were promoted, who joined the cadre of Assistant Manager in the month of October, 1998. The appellants were placed above the private respondents in the seniority list dated 24.01.2007 which was set aside by the Managing Director of the respondent No.3-Bank vide LPA No.781 of 2012 (O&M) [2] ***** impugned order dated 07.11.2009 on a representation made by one of the promotees. The Bank also took the opinion of the State Government in this regard and the Punjab Government Welfare Department (Reservation Cell), vide its Memo dated 04.02.2010 advised the Bank with regard to the inter-se seniority of the Assistant Managers that those who were promoted as Assistant Manager regular till 1998 are entitled to be declared as senior to the candidates recruited directly in 2001 and after finalization of their seniority list, they are entitled to be promoted as Deputy manager or Managers from the dates on which their juniors had been promoted. The reservation policy and fixed quota be also asked to be taken into consideration while giving them promotion.
The appellants became apprehensive of their down gradation in the revised seniority list which could have been issued in terms of the opinion of the Government, referred to above, and unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 07.11.2009 by way of writ petition leading to the filing of the present intra-court appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it has been wrongly observed by the learned Single Judge that the private respondents were not granted accelerated promotions without their turn as per the seniority. In this regard, he has referred to the reply of the private respondents in which the following observations have been made:-
"One set of the employees are the answering respondents who belonging to SC category and were promoted as Assistant Manager by a common order dated 10.10.1998 and continuously working on the said posts without any break. The 2nd set of employees are LPA No.781 of 2012 (O&M) [3] ***** those employees though who were senior to the answering respondents but came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Manager in the year 2002 and by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajit Singh Janjua's case were entitled to re-gain their seniority over the 1st set of employees who came to be promoted prior in time under reserved roaster point". It is further submitted that the promotion of a candidate against the Roaster Quota would not effect the candidates senior to them on the lower post who were promoted afterwards as they would be considered senior to the persons who have been promoted against the Roaster point. It is also submitted that the Rule of reservation although gives accelerated promotion but it does not give accelerated consequential seniority. In this regard, he has referred to para 45 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1999(4) RSJ 211.
Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that it is not a dispute between the promotees rather it is the dispute between the direct recruitees and the promotees. It is submitted that even if it is presumed that the private respondents, belonging to the S.C. Category, were promoted in terms of their Roaster Point, the "catch up rule" would not apply in case of a direct recruit, but apply inter-se amongst promotees who belong to General category and were promoted later on. It is also submitted that the statutory service rules, namely, the Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Service Common Cadre Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") do not provide rota- LPA No.781 of 2012 (O&M) [4]
***** quota principle to be followed rather the seniority is based on length of service and as per the opinion given by the State Government. It is further argued that the private respondents were promoted to the post in question, namely, Assistant Manager, in the year 1998, whereas the appellants were recruited in the year 2001, therefore, they could not be treated to be senior to the promotees when they were not even borne in the cadre and the promotees had already rendered more than 3 years' of service on the post of Assistant Manager than the direct recruits.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, on 10.10.1998, the Clerks and Field Officers in the common cadre of respondent No.3-Bank were promoted as Assistant Managers (Inspection). As per their averments, reproduced by the appellants in the grounds of appeals pertaining to the admission in the written statement of the private respondents, in the year 1998, two sets of employees were there; one belonging to S.C. Category who were promoted on 10.10.1998 and the others were senior to the S.C. Category and promoted in the year 2002. Meaning thereby both were either Clerks or Filed Officers in the common cadre out of which the set of employees belonging to S.C. Category are alleged to have been promoted in terms of their quota and the General category candidates who were though senior to them were promoted later on and were to be considered senior in terms of the "catch up" rule. The "catch up" rule is defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh and others' case (supra).
Thus, the dispute in the present case is not between the LPA No.781 of 2012 (O&M) [5] ***** employees of the same cadre who were both promoted, rather it is a dispute of seniority between the promotees of 1998 and the direct recruits of 2001 on the post of Assistant Managers. It is not in dispute that the Bank had sought the opinion of the State Government in which it was provided that the Assistant Managers, who have been regularly promoted in the year 1998, will be senior to the candidates who were directly recruited in the year 2001. It has also not been shown to us by the counsel for the appellants that there was any statutory Rule to follow the principle of rota-quota and since Rule 10 of the Rules provides that the inter-se seniority of the members of the Service is to be determined "from the date of their continuous appointment to a post in the said category", the private respondents, who were the regular promotees of 1998, would definitely be treated to be senior than the direct recruits who were borne in the cadre in the year 2001.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge which warrants interference by this Court. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
(A.K.Sikri) (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
Chief Justice Judge
April 01, 2013
vinod*