OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him increment, seniority, arrears of increment and fixation of pay at par to his junior i.e. Respondent No. 5 Girraj with all consequential benefits from the date of his initial appointment to the post of Conductor on temporary basis with a further prayer for quashing of the order dated 16.10.2003 (Annexure P-6) vide which the claim of the petitioner for condoning the break in service has been declined in the light of Rule 4.23 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 2, Clause 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was employed through the Employment Exchange by the respondents as Conductor and joined as such on 18.11.1980 on temporary basis. His services were discontinued on the ground that there were surplus Conductors at Chandigarh Depot on 28.11.1980. Thereafter, he was again reappointed vide order dated 1.12.1980. His services were discontinued on 14.1.1981. Another re-appointment order dated 15.3.1981 was issued to him and thereafter he had been continuing in service with the respondents till 7.9.1981. He was again re-appointed on 9.10.1982 leading ultimately to regularization of his services on 5.6.1983. Petitioner was not granted increments because of the break in service nor was he granted any wages or seniority. Similarly placed employees and especially his junior Girraj respondent No. 5 was granted benefit of condoning the delay in the breaks which had occurred similarly in his case as in the case of the petitioner which benefit was granted to respondent No. 5 vide order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P-11).

(2.) Petitioner approached the respondents earlier thereto for claiming the benefit which was declined vide order dated 16.10.2003 (Annexure P-6). After the grant of this benefit to his junior, the petitioner again approached the respondents and even served the legal notice dated 8.12.2008. When no response was received, he approached this Court by way of the present writ petition claiming the same benefit as has been granted to Despondent No. 5.

(3.) Upon notice issued by this Court, respondents have filed reply wherein the facts with regard his initial joining through the Employment Exchange on temporary basis, dis-continuation of his service and reappointments as also the regularization of his services w.e.f. 5.6.1983 have been admitted. The reason assigned for not granting the benefit of break in service in the case of the petitioner is on the basis of Rule 4.23 of the Rules, the extract whereof has been reproduced in Annexure R-1.