Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sultan Singh And Others vs The Punjab State Electricity Board ... on 7 November, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No. 7404 of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 7404 of 2001
Date of decision :- 07.11.2013
Sultan Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
The Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate
for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER J.(Oral)
The petitioners impugn the order (Annexure P-4) vide which their appointments to the post of Assistant Lineman (ALM) have been cancelled. All the petitioners herein are stated to be sportsmen of excellence and representing the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in sports events.
The petitioners No.1 and 3 were initially appointed as daily-wagers w.e.f. 1986 but were appointed as Work-Charge-T-Mate on 10.04.1992; while petitioner No.2 was appointed as a daily-wager Asija Vijay 2013.11.29 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh CWP No. 7404 of 2001 -2- on 26.5.1992 and and as a Work-Charge-T-Mate on 12.3.1996. On 09.8.2000 all the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Lineman on the basis of their performance in sports. They were to be on probation for a period of two years but by virtue of Annexure P-4 dated 27.4.2001 their appointments were cancelled ostensibly on account of policy instructions contained in Annexure R-3, which contemplates that a sportsman comprising the teams of the Board may be inducted into service initially on contract basis on a lump sum salary of Rs.7500/- per month for a period of three years before their absorption in the service on regular basis. This is precisely the stand disclosed by the respondents in the reply. They have also stated that the Chairman shall be authorized to take a decision regarding such appointments and since in the case of the petitioners a person of lesser authority had taken the decision and further on account of the fact that petitioners did not fall within the ambit of the policy (Annexure R-3) their appointments were cancelled.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
It may be noticed that the petitioners are continuing in service on account of the interim orders passed by this Court at the time of initiation of the writ petition.
It is also not in dispute that the respondents have a policy of appointing sportsmen in service as special category candidates even though Annexure R-3 would indicate initial appointment on Asija Vijay 2013.11.29 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh CWP No. 7404 of 2001 -3- contractual basis for a period of three years before regular absorption. If that be so then it is evident that the respondents acknowledge the mode of appointment of the special category cases. The petitioners are undisputedly sportsmen of exception and are representing the teams of the Board. It is, thus, not conceivable as to why the services of the petitioners have to be dispensed with when such an irregularity could have been cured by the respondents rather than resorting to a complete extinguishment of the arrangement.
This to the mind of the Court has seriously prejudiced the petitioners. They were already in service of the Board since 1986 and were thus much better placed in so far as the Board was concerned viz a viz those employees, who would not have been in employment and would have gained employment on the strength of Annexure R-3 in the event of acknowledgment of their talent in sports. To the mind of this Court the abrupt action of the respondents has caused serious prejudice to the case of the petitioners and what was required was a minimal adjustment by rectification of an irregularity but the respondents terminated the arrangement of the petitioners altogether. It would have been a different question if the respondents had stated that the admissibility of sports category persons was ruled out altogether but having in place a policy, which enables them to make such appointments then to turn around and terminate the arrangement on the pretext as Asija Vijay 2013.11.29 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh CWP No. 7404 of 2001 -4- disclosed in the reply would certainly be a fallacy.
Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to make a distinction that the services of the petitioners were not terminated or dispensed with but merely the office order was withdrawn. This to the mind of the Court is not an acceptable plea. If the office order on the strength of which the petitioners gain employment as ALMs was withdrawn then evidently the services of ALMs would stand dispensed with and whether they would revert back to their status as Work-Charge-T-Mates would be of no consequence to the petitioners considering the prejudice caused to them by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P-4). Evidently this would be of no solace to them. Besides this the petitioners have already continued in service for the last more than a decade before passing of the impugned order (Annexure P-4) and therefore it would be unwise to unsettle the equities at this stage of the proceedings more particularly when the respondents have not shown to this Court that the petitioners have not discharged their duties efficiently.
For the aforesaid reason, the petition is accepted and the impugned order Annexure P-4 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners shall continue with the respondents as ALMs.
November 07, 2013 ( MAHESH GROVER )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Asija Vijay
2013.11.29 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court,Chandigarh