SNEHLATA R PATEL Vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT PANCNAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the Bharuch District Panchayat, Respondent No.1 herein and she is holding the post of Treasurer in the set-up of Bharuch District Panchayat. It appears that the original Bharuch Revenue District is divided into two parts namely; Bharuch District and Narmada District and in Narmada District, Talukas Nanded, Dediapada and Sakbara are included. On account of the aforesaid formation of new Narmada District and as certain area of Bharuch District is also included in Narmada District, new Narmada District Panchayat is formed and the service of the petitioner is allotted to Narmada District Panchayat.

(2.) It appears that the State Government has passed the order for the purpose of allocation of various employees of Bharuch District Panchayat to Narmada District Panchayat and based on the said order of the State Government on 25.8.2001, the District Development Officer (DDO), Bharuch has passed the order for allocation of service of the employees of Bharuch District Panchayat to Narmada District Panchayat. The perusal of the said order shows that as decided by the State Government such employees are to be placed loan service for a temporary period and the petitioner together with the other employees who are juniors in the post of tracers are also sent on loan service. Of course, it is the contention of the petitioner that it is not a matter of allocation of loan service, but is on deputation. The case of the respondent District Panchayat is that the petitioner is allocated on the basis of the policy decided by the Government to allocate junior most employee in the cadre and accordingly the order has been passed by the DDO, whereas the case of the petitioner is that even for the purpose of deciding the seniority, such seniority list is required to be prepared on the basis of roster point available and on the basis of availability of the post for that particular category. It is also the further contention of the petitioner that since the petitioner is belonging to Scheduled Tribe (ST) and her appointment was in ST category and if the seniority list is prepared category-wise, she would not be the junior most or at least she would not fall in the category of junior employee, who are to be allocated to Narmada District Panchayat. It is also the case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner is serving with Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) at Valiya, Ankaleshwar and since even as per the policy of the Government as far as possible, husband and wife are to be posted at the same place and they are not to be disturbed, the petitioner ought not to have been allocated on deputation to Narmada District Panchayat, whereas the stand of the District Panchayat is that the policy of the Government or the decision of the Government provides for not to disturb husband and wife who are in the service of the State Government or the Panchayat Service and such benefit is not extended to the employees whose spouses are serving in any Government of India undertaking like LIC.

(3.) It may be recorded that earlier the petitioner, upon the apprehension of termination in the year 1995, preferred Special Civil Application No.3293 of 1995 and at that stage, it was declared on behalf of the Panchayat that there was no proposal for termination of the service of the petitioner and the apprehension voiced by the petitioner was without any basis and, therefore, the said petition came to be rejected. It also appears that thereafter in the year 2001 the petitioner preferred another Special Civil Application No.7122 of 2001, challenging the order of the District Panchayat for allotting her service on deputation to Narmada District Panchayat, and the very order is also impugned in this petition. In the said petition this Court (Coram: P.B. Majmudar, J.) as per the order dated 2.7.2002, observed for the representation to be made by the petitioner and such representation to be decided by the District Development Officer. Thereafter the District Development Officer has passed the order on 18.10.2002, whereby the earlier order dated 25.8.2001 for allotting the service of the petitioner to Narmada District Panchayat is maintained and it was observed that the petitioner is not falling in the exceptional category of posting at the same place to husband and wife and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring the present petition.