Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrit Pal Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 September, 2008
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.3391 of 1990 :1:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Date of decision: 23.09.2008.
(1) CWP No.3391 of 1990
Amrit Pal Singh and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
(2) CWP No.9901 of 1988
Mohinder Singh Chawala ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
(3) CWP No.13711 of 1989
Jawahar Lal and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM
HON'BL MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr.Rajive Atma Ram, Senior Advocate,with
Mr.GC Gupta, Advocate,for the petitioners.
Mr.S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J.
Since the common questions of law and facts arise in the aforesaid writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The petitioners in CWP No.3391 of 1990 were appointed as Sub Inspectors in the Department of Food and Supplies during the years CWP No.3391 of 1990 :2: 1972-73. The petitioners in CWP No.13711 of 1989 were also appointed as Sub Inspectors between 1971 to 1973, whereas the petitioner in CWP No.9901 of 1988 was also appointed as Sub Inspector in the year 1972. All the petitioners were appointed on being selected by the competent selection board. The private respondents in CWP No.9901 of 1988 were appointed on ad hoc basis as Sub Inspectors in the Food and Supplies Department in the year 1971 without any process of selection. However, in the year 1973 they were regularised with effect from 01.01.1973. Since the appointment of private respondents on the substantive post was later in time, they were ranked junior to the petitioners in the seniority list from Serial No.608 onwards and the petitioners were above in the seniority list. Some of the private respondents filed Civil Writ Petition in the year 1975 claiming seniority over and above the petitioners on the basis of their ad hoc appointments. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Letters Patent Bench in appeal. An appeal preferred by the private respondents and other similarly situated persons before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, also came to be dismissed upholding the judgment of the Division Bench. The judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court is reported as 1983 (3) SLR, 264. As a consequence of the dismissal of the SLP, the petitioners retained their seniority over and above the private respondents. Some of the private respondents and petitioners were later allowed to work as Junior Analyst. After working for some time, such persons filed writ petition before this Court claiming regular appointment to the post of Junior Analyst. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment reported as 1987 (4) SLR, 115, issued the following CWP No.3391 of 1990 :3: directions:-
"In the result these four writ petitions are partly allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions for regularisation of their services as Junior Analyst on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit and if on such consideration they are found suitable for regularisation then regularise their services as Junior Analyst forthwith."
It appears that no order was passed pursuant to the aforesaid direction and contempt proceedings were initiated whereupon the respondents-State ordered the regularisation of the services of the private respondents as Junior Analyst on the basis of length of service in the Laboratory as Junior Analyst notwithstanding seniority of the private respondents qua petitioners and other respondents. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners and private respondents were members of the same cadre of service and the petitioners were senior to them as Sub Inspectors. All of them were holding substantive rank of Sub Inspectors but working as Junior Analysts. The petitioners have, accordingly, approached this Court seeking a direction for consideration of their claim as Junior Analysts with effect from the date private respondents have been appointed as Junior Analyst.
The respondents have filed their reply admitting the factual background. The only defence which has been projected at the time of argument is that the private respondents were regularised as Junior Analysts pursuant to the directions of the High Court in CWP NO.831 of 1985 which CWP No.3391 of 1990 :4: were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.97 of 1987. The order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition has already been noticed here-in-above. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that there was no direction to the respondents-State to regularise the services of the private respondents as Junior Analyst in violation of the seniority position or any other consideration. The only direction issued by this Court was only to consider the petitioners for regularisation and their services as Junior Analysts on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The respondents, however, under the garb of the aforesaid direction of this Court, illegally granted undue benefits to the private respondents and appointed them as Junior Analyst ignoring the seniority or even the merit of the petitioners and similarly situated Sub Inspectors who are senior to the private respondents.
The only ground is that they were working as Junior Analysts and the promotion is being made on the basis of the length of service as Junior Analyst. It may be noticed here that under the Punjab Food and Supplies Department (State Service, Class-III) Rules, 1968, promotion to the post of Junior Analyst is made in the following manner:-
"(Q): In the case of Junior Analysts:-
(i) by direct appointment; or
(ii) by promotion from amongst Sub Inspectors;
provided they are Intermediate and have worked on the post of Sub Inspector for a minimum period of 2 years; or
(iii) by transfer or deputation of an official CWP No.3391 of 1990 :5: already in the service of the Government of India or of a State Government holding appointment equivalent to the post held by the departmental official eligible for appointment by promotion."
In view of the clear mandate of the rules, the feeding channel is Sub Inspectors only with minimum two years service required as Sub Inspectors. There is no stipulation that a person should be working on ad hoc basis as Junior Analyst before he/she is promoted to the post of Junior Analyst. The ground on which the private respondents have been granted benefit of promotion, is un-warranted and unjustified.
It is not out of context to say that the case of the petitioners was not considered at all and merely on the basis of the direction of the Court referred to above and in view of the contempt petition having been filed, the respondents hurriedly granted undue benefit to the private respondents. Thus, it does not place the private respondents in a better position nor does it in any manner take away the right of the petitioners for placement as Junior Analysts which is promotional post from the feeding cadre of Sub Inspectors.
In view of the above circumstances, these petitions are allowed. Since private respondents are working on the promotional posts for the last more than 20 years, it is not deemed appropriate to order their reversion. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to promote the petitioners as Junior Analysts and and place them in the same pay scale with effect from the date private respondents were promoted and made Junior Analysts in CWP No.3391 of 1990 :6: terms of the order dated 24.10.1988. The petitioners shall also be entitled to consequential benefits. Let this entire process be completed within a period of four months from today. No costs.
23.09.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES