Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amarjit Kaur And Another vs Punjab State Tubewell Corporation And ... on 31 January, 2014

Bench: Jasbir Singh, Harinder Singh Sidhu

                      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                               Letters Patent Appeal No. 122 of 2014 (O&M)

                                       Date of Decision: 31.1.2014


          Amarjit Kaur and Another
                                                                            ... Appellants

                                                 Versus

          Punjab State Tubewell Corporation and Others
                                                                         ... Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu.

Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the appellants Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 327-LPA of 2014 In view of averments made in this application, the same is allowed. Delay of 20 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. Letters Patent Appeal No. 122 of 2014 Private respondents No.3 to 14 laid challenge to the seniority list showing the appellants and proforma respondents senior to them. It was a positive case that when they joined service as regular Clerks, the appellants and the proforma respondents were serving on ad hoc basis and their entry in service was not through proper selection. However, subsequent thereto their services were regularized from the initial date of joining of service on ad hoc basis which made them senior to respondents No.3 to 14. The above fact was taken note of by the learned Single Judge. By making reference to Bye-law 8 of the Punjab Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 122 of 2014 (O&M) 2 State Tubewell Corporation Employees Service Bye-laws 1977 (in short "the Bye-laws"), it is specifically stated that appointment to the services shall be made by direct appointment, by promotion, by transfer and by absorption into service of the employees taken on deputation. It is apparent on record that so far as the appellants and proforma respondents are concerned when they were taken into service on ad hoc basis, the posts were not advertised. The Superintending Engineer was authorized to make the appointments to fill up the posts. So far as the respondents No.3 to 14 are concerned from the day one, they were appointed on regular basis in the year 1978. The service of appellants and proforma respondents was made regular in the year 1996, however, from the date of their joining initially on ad hoc basis in the year 1977. By noting above fact and by placing reliance upon Note I added to Bye-law 10 of the above said Bye-laws, the learned Single Judge has rightly said that seniority inter se of the employees shall be determined taking note of regular date on which the person was regularly appointed. In this Note, it has been specifically stated that seniority of members appointed on purely provisional basis, shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. Bye-law is very clear. The services rendered on ad hoc basis by the appellants and the proforma respondents cannot be calculated for the purpose of seniority. Respondents No.3 to 14 were inducted into regular service in the year 1978. By making reference to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Chambel Singh v. State of Haryana and Another 1995(1) R.S.J. 382, it was rightly said that ad Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 122 of 2014 (O&M) 3 hoc service could not be counted towards seniority. Also the Supreme Court in Anuradha Mukherjee (Smt.) and Others v. Union of India and Others (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 59 has specifically stated that only that ad hoc service can be counted towards seniority where appointment was made in accordance with Rules and by way of public appointment.

In the present case, it was not done as apparent from the written statement filed by the respondent-Corporation. The appointment was made sans the Rules and was not through open advertisement. If that is so, no fault can be found in the order, so passed, by the learned Single Judge.

Dismissed.

(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge January 31, 2014 "DK"

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document