RUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 12.03.2010 of the learned Single Judge passed in amended writ petition which has been ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The issue which arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was a claim of Ziledars working in the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd.(PSTC), the petitioners before the Court, for absorption in the Punjab Irrigation Department (PID) on certain posts of Ziledars being declared surplus by PSTC. The controversy arose when a request was made by Chief Engineer/KAD Irrigation Works, Punjab to the Managing Director of PSTC by letter dated 27.01.1993 to forward the service particulars of "18 senior Ziledars". It was clarified in the letter that the list should be based upon seniority and there should not be favouritism or victimization. The reservation policy of the State of Punjab meant for direct recruitment issued through circular dated 06.12.1990 was to be applied and followed. Meaning thereby, the 18 posts were broken up in the following manner:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_621_LAWS(P&H)8_2012_1.html</FRM>

(3.) There can be no doubt that but for the request made by the Irrigation Department, 18 Ziledars would have been rendered surplus and without jobs. It appears that at one time, Punjab Government had conveyed its approval to the absorption of 27 surplus Ziledars of PSTC either against the vacant post of Ziledars in Government or available lower posts provided that surplus employees should possess requisite educational and other qualifications required for the post and they have not been retrenched with payment of terminal benefits. Of the three petitioners, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 claimed absorption as Ziledar in the Irrigation Department and petitioner No. 3 as Naib Tehsildar in the Revenue Department. The claim of petitioner No. 3 was based on a decision by the State Government to absorb him as Naib Tehsildar but it was not so done. In the final dispensation, 18 Ziledars of PSTC who were the juniormost in the cadre were recommended for absorption. It appears that at the time of recommendation for absorption to State service the scales of pay of the posts of Ziledars in PSTC and PID were the same and there was, therefore, not much difference in status. However, with passage of time, State service became more attractive in terms of pay, perquisites and pension. The petitioners who continued in PSTC service found themselves marooned on an island with their erstwhile juniors appearing to steal a march over them in their new-found-land on absorption in State service. It is this divide which is the cause of heart burn in the present case. Therefore, the case of the petitioner No. 3 - appellant herein was built around the letter of request dated 27.01.1993 where the Chief Engineer/KAD, Irrigation Works, Punjab, the prospective employer in representing State Government had asked for record of 18 Senior Ziledars and that such list of senior surplus Ziledars should be based upon seniority. When PSTC forwarded the final list category-wise the Corporation should be understood as having taken a conscious decision commensurate with its own needs and exigencies of service in the Corporation to have forwarded the list of 18 Ziledars category-wise as it best suited them on the touchstone of maintaining efficiency of its own administration. We do not read the letter dated 27.1.1993 as a command to PSTC to act in a particular manner so long as neither favouritism nor victimisation was present in doing so in its range of selection. The factum of declaration of surplus by PSTC took place on 12.02.1993.