KAILASH KUMAR Vs. THE PUNJAB POULTRY DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Helper with the respondent-Punjab Poultry Development Corporation (In short 'the Corporation'), in the pay scale of Rs. 300-430 on 6th Jan., 1983. The letter of appointment is signed by the General Manager for Managing Director. One of the conditions of the service as per the appointment letter is that the petitioner can be transferred anywhere by the Corporation where the works of the Corporation are being carried out in various projects. In Dec., 1988, while the petitioner was working in the Project of the Corporation at Jalandhar known as EP.C. Jalandhar, he was transferred to the Egg Hay Plant of the Corporation at Sangrur.

(2.) Vide order dated 10th Jan., 1989 (Copy Annexure R/5 with the written statement), the Corporation dispensed with the services of the petitioner, on the ground that the Egg Hay Plant at Sangrur had been closed with effect from 20th Dec., 1988, with the approval of the State Government and the land, building, plant and machinery had been put on sale. It was because of this that the services of the petitioner were no longer required.

(3.) During the course of arguments, I had allowed the petitioner to file an additional affidavit to show if any Helper/Beldar who might have been appointed later than the petitioner, had been still allowed to continue in the Corporation. An affidavit of the petitioner, dated 3rd June, 1991 was filed in the Court, mentioning therein certain names who were, according to the petitioner, junior to him as Helpers/Beldars were still allowed to continue. Reply by way of affidavit dated 16th Aug., 1991, was filed by the Managing Director on behalf of the Corporation, In this reply it has been mentioned that one Harminder Singh who was admittedly appointed later than the petitioner, absented himself from the service on his own and he was dismissed on 7th June, 1991. It has further been admitted that one Surinder Singh, who had joined the Corporation on 1st Dec., 1982, i.e. after the petitioner, is being allowed to continue and the ground given for his continuance, in the reply, is that the Corporation is not maintaining any common seniority list of Helpers/Beldars.