RAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUCCINCTLY , the relevant facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that Petitioner was appointed as Conductor purely on temporary basis in the pay scale of? 400 -600, by virtue of appointment letter dated 31.8.1984 (Annexure P1). The Petitioner claimed that since from the very beginning of his appointment, he is performing his duties as Clerk attached with the Legal Advisor, so, he is entitled to be absorbed permanently as such. The representations filed by him in this behalf were stated to have been wrongly rejected by the competent authority, although he was recommended to be absorbed in the cadre of Clerk by his Field Officer. The Petitioner has also pressed into service the plea of discrimination as according to him, the Respondents have absorbed Dharam Pal Conductor and Sant Sarup Fitter in the cadre of Clerks under the similar circumstances.

(2.) LEVELLING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the Petitioner claimed that from the very beginning of his entering into the service as he was working as Clerk till today, therefore, he is entitled to be absorbed in the cadre of Clerk permanently. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, accordingly, the Petitioner preferred the instant writ petition for issuance of directions in this relevant connection, invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the manner indicated hereinabove.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.