RAM KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had been working in the Irrigation Works of Punjab since the year 1952 and assigned to the project at Nangal as a work-charged employee and the execution of the civil work at Bhakra Nangal Project. The petitioner's claim is on the basis that after the formation of new States of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana as per the provisions of Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, the petitioner's services had been placed under the disposal of Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB). But he had not been allocated specifically to the services of Punjab as he was entitled to. At the time of filing of the petition, admittedly the petitioner was working in Mechanical Sub Division at the Nangal Workshop under the control of BBMB.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.3 and 4, which is BBMB, through its Chairman and the Chief Engineer respectively have recruited several other work-charged employees for execution of civil works and after the completion of the works, they had also allocated services to the partner States namely in the State of Punjab, Haryana, PSEB, HSEB etc but the petitioner had not been repatriated as an employee under the Punjab Government in spite of numerous representations and thus deprived of the State's benefits which had been made available to his counter-parts, whose services had been allocated to the State of Punjab. The matter appears to have been taken up at different levels and the petitioner refers to certain deliberations where demands of several persons were being considered but still a decision was not forthcoming. The petitioner would make pointed reference to Section 82(1) of Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 that provided for allocation to the State in which the person was previously working with the affairs of that particular State and Section 83, which declare that every person who immediately before the appointed day was holding any duty in connection with the affairs of the particular State shall continue to hold the same post in the successor State. The writ petition came to be filed on 27.03.1989 seeking for the relief that he should be directed to be allocated to the services to the State of Punjab. The written statement has been filed by both respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other. The State would contend that the applicable provisions should be Section 79(1) read with Section 75 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 that declared that the BBMB might employ such staff as it considered necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions. The work-charged employees engaged on temporary basis were required to be terminated by the very nature of their work and completion of the work and they do not constitute any cadre in the Punjab Government to be reabsorbed in the Government. The pay and allowances were themselves chargeable to the estimated cost of work and the entire work-charged employees were taken over by the BBMB on 01.11.1966 in view of Section 79(1) & (4) of the Punjab Reorganization Act. The petitioner, therefore, became the employee of BBMB only and he cannot be treated as the employee of the State of Punjab. BBMB has also filed the reply making reference to the fact that governing provisions will be Section 79 and 75 of the State Reorganization Act, 1966 and they could not have been allocated to the successor State. Para IX of the Act contained provisions for All India Services and State Services and the Work-Charged workmen itself did not constitute a cadre of services defined under Part IX.

(3.) The other contention also is that the petition is grossly delayed in that the State Reorganization that came about in the year 1966 would not admit of claim by a person in the year 1989 for allocation to the Stale of Punjab.