Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gurnam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 September, 1999
JUDGMENT V.K. Majotra, Member (A)
1. In this Application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 15.4.1991 of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab Chandigarh, respondent No. 4 (Annexure A-1), withdrawing him from deputation with the Union Territory, Chandigarh, alleging it to be non est and without jurisdiction. The case of the applicant is that he joined as a Clerk in the Cooperative Department of Punjab Government on 8.6.1965. He was posted with Inspector, Cooperative Societies Chandigarh and remained as such till the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab, which took place from November 1, 1996 under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Vide orders No. 22/6(ii)-66-SR(S) dated 24.10.66, persons who immediately before the appointed day were serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab in territories specified in Section 4 of the Act were deemed to serve provisionally from the appointed day in connection with the affairs of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Since the applicant was serving as such before the appointed day i.e. 1.11.66, he alongwith his post was transferred to the Union Territory of Charndigarh. On 20.12.69, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Union Territory, Chandigarh transferred his services to the Deputy Commissidner's office, UT Chandigarh and ever since he has been working in that office. In the gradation list of the establishment of Deputy Commissioner's office, UT Chandigarh dated 20/12.72 (A-3), he is shown at Sr. No. 13. The Chandigarh Administration took up the matter of his permanent absorption in the Union Territory with respondent No. 4 and whereas in a similar case one Shri Kartar Chand was absorbed in the UT Chandigarh (A-5 and A-6), the applicant has not been absorbed till date. His representation dated 9.4.80 in this regard (A-7) has not been decided by the Central Govt., which is the competent authority. Applicant has sought the following reliefs :
(a) To quash the impugned order (Annexure A-1 in-sofar as it relates/affects the applicant, erroneously passed by respondent No. 4, who has no jurisdiction or legal competence to do the same ;
(b) To declare that in view of the allocation of the applicant to Union Territory of Chandigarh made under the provision of Re-organisation Act, having not been changed, altered, or modified since the appointed day i.e. 1.11.1966 (for about 25 years), the applicant is deemed to have permanently and finally been allocated to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
(c) To direct respondents No. 2 and 3 to give all benefits viz. pay fixation, seniority, confirmation, promotion.etc. at par with the employees of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh w.e.f. the date it became due and available to the applicant.
(d) To direct the respondents to treat the applicant as an UT employee for all intents and purposes with consequential relief.
(e) To direct the respondent not to transfer the applicant out of the Union Territory, Chandigarh.
(f) To pass any other relief/reliefs to which the applicant may be found to be entitled to.
2. In their written statement, respondents 1 to 3 havecontended that the applicant has been on deputation with the Chandigarh Administration and was never considered as an employee of the Administration. The case of the applicant is not at par with that of Shri Kartar Chand.
3. Respondent No. 4 in his written statement has stated that the applicant has been working with the Union Territory since 8.6.65 on deputation which has been extended from time to time. Vide letter dated 3.12.85, the Govt. of Punjab, Deptt. of Cooperation had conveyed to Chandigarh Administration their no objection for permanent absorption of the applicant in the Union Territory. The applicant has never been provisionally allocated to UT Administration.
4. Applicant has filed rejoinders to the written statements of the respondents.
5. The learned Counsel for the parties present were heard and the records produced before us carefully examined.
6. Reiterating the points made in the OA, the learned counsel for the applicant maintained that the applicant was never sent on deputation by the Govt. of Punjab to the UT administration, Chandigarh. Instead, he was transferred alongwith the post to the UT Administration and there is an entry to this effect in his service book. He drew our attention to the judgment of the Pubjab and Haryana High Court dated 8.11.73 in Civil Writ No. 2008 of 1973 titled "Baldev Krishan Punder v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors." (A-8). The Petitioner in that case, aPatwari of Punjab Govt. was transferred to Chandigarh 1964 and had continued as such prior to the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab. In accordance with the order dated October 24, 1966 passed by the Central Govt., he continued to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the UT of Chandigarh. As per Section 82(2) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, the order for his permanent allocation to any successor State had to be passed by the Central Govt. which had not been passed till then. It was held that the order to transfer him from Chandigarh could be made by the Central Govt. by allocating him finally to any successor State and till that order is passed, he has to continue to serve at Chandigarh in connection with the affairs of the UT of Chandigarh.
7. Learned counsel further contended that whereas the Pubjab Govt. has not produced any order of deputation of the applicant with the Union Territory Administration, UT Chandigarh had recommended for his permanent absorption. Central Govt. is the competent authority to decide about the final allocation to a successor State, no document has been shown as to the orders of the Central Govt. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to AIR 1993 SC 1974, Ram Parkash Makkar v. State of Haryana and Ors., wherein a distinction was drawn between appointment on transfer and deputation. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, it was held to be a case of transfer and not deputation.
8. Learned counsel for respondents I to 3 stated that the UT Administration had treated the applicant as on deputation and that is why they had obtained NOC from Punjab Govt. for his permanent absorption. He referred to the communication dated 22.5.78 (R-1) of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh stating that the applicant had been allocated to Punjab State. He further referred to order dated 7th February, 1997 in OA 574-PB-96, "Parshotam Kumar Dabra v. Union of India and Ors." and order dated 10.8.94 in OA236/CH/88, "Krishan Kumar Bansal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. " of this Bench, contending that since the Govt. of India have not taken a decision for absorption of the applicant in the UT Administration, the impugned order Annexure A-1 withdrawing the applicant from deputation cannot be faulted with.
Central Govt. order dated 24th October, 1966 reads as under :
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, the Central Government hereby requires all persons who immediately before the appointed day are serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab in Territories specified in Section 4 of the said Act to serve provisionally from the appointed day in connection with the affairs of the Union Territory of Chandigarh."
The applicant has been working with the Co-operative Department at Chandigarh prior to Ist November, 1966. In accordance with the Central Govt. order dated October 24, 1966 quoted above, the applicant continued to serve provisionally in accordance with the affairs of the UT of Chandigarh, one of the successor States to the erstwhile State of Punjab. Under Section 82(2) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, the order for his permanent allocation to any successor State had to be passed by the Central Govt. The respondents have not adduced any evidence about making available the services of the applicant on deputation with the Chandigarh Administration. We do not find Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab letter dated 22.5.78 of any significance, wherein it has been stated that the applicant had been allocated to the Punjab State from 1.11.1966 and he had been on deputation from time to time. The most important evidence which has come to our notice about the nature of transfer of services of the applicant is an entry certified on 27.8.67 by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Ropar in the service book of the applicant. The relevant entry is in columns 10 and 11 of the service books and reads as follows :
"31.10.66 The post alongwith incumbant transferred :
Union Territory : sd/- 27.8.67 Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Ropar"
"Joined UT Chandigarh on 1.11.66 (F.N.) as Clerks.
sd/-
7,6.68 Executive Magistrate-cum-
ARCS UT Chandigarh."
It is clear that the applicant had been transferred from Punjab to the Union Territory alongwith his post much prior to 1.11.66, that is the date of reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab. In the absence of a specific original order as to how the applicant had been transferred from Punjab and when the respondents have not shown any record proving the aforesaid entries in the service book as erroneously made, we have to believe that the applicant had been transferred to the Union Territory of Chandigarh prior to re-organisation alongwith his post, and that his services had not been made available to the UT Administration on deputation. The applicant has been working with the UT Administration from 1.11.66 till date. UT Administration had been willing to permanently absorb the applicant and the Punjab Govt. had also given their NOC for the same. The only step remaining to be completed is that the Central Govt. has not passed any orders under Section 82(2) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966. In the process, the applicant has suffered a great deal, inasmuch as he has been deprived of service benefits such as increased pay, seniority, confirmation, promotion etc. Obviously, this is a case of sheer neglect on the part of the respondents, which has caused great harm and injustice to the applicant.
Since we have concluded that the instant case has not been one of deputation, but of regular transfer alongwith the post to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the ratio decidendi in the cases of 'Parshotam Kumar Dabra' and 'Knshan Kumar Bansal is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. As per the statement of Punjab Govt. - respondent No. 4, they have accorded their no objection vide their letter dated 3.12.85 to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration for permanent absorption of the petitioner in the Union Territory.
In the light of the above discussion, the order dated 15.4.91 made by respondent No. 4 is held to be non est in the eyes of law, having been made without jurisdiction and is quashed as such. Central Govt. (respondent No. 1 in this case) is directed to pass an order under Section 80 (2) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, making final allocation of the applicant to any successor State and till that is done, applicant shall continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. This direction be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After the order of his final allocation, the applicant can approach the concerned authorities to grant him consequential benefits.
No Costs.