GURAN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment we will dispose of above mentioned 10 writ petitions as all of them involve common question of law for determination based on somewhat similar facts. For the purposes of brevity, reference is being made to the facts in the case of Guran Dass v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 6 of 2003.

(2.) Petitioner joined as Work Supervisor with the Municipal 'Corporation', Jalandhar, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, on 29.3.1987 on work charge basis. He continued to work as such upto 13.11.1990 without any break. The Corporation vide its resolution No. 5080 dated 28.3.1990 resolved to regularise the services of its temporary employees who had completed more than 240 days of service and satisfied the other conditions. This resolution of the Corporation was approved by the Government vide its letter dated 19.10.1990. As a result thereto, the services of the petitioner were regularised as Work Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800/- on 30.10.1990. In the year 1991, the petitioner was adjusted against a vacant post of Road Inspector. Vide letter dated 6.5.1991 the petitioner was so informed by the Corporation Engineer. The petitioner was described as Work Supervisor in the certificate issued by the Superintending Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar on 4.12.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of JE on 25.1.1999. The scale of the said post was granted to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1999 as he completed the 12 years prescribed experience under the rules on that date.

(3.) However, the respondents served a notice to show cause dated 19.2.2001 (Annexure P/8 to the writ petition) upon the petitioner calling him to show cause why he should not be reverted from the post of Junior Engineer as his promotion had been made contrary to the rules because on the date of his promotion, he did not possess 12 years experience and he had the experience of only 8 years and 5 months. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 28.2.2001 to the show cause notice, Annexure P/9 to the writ petition, clearly stating that he joined as Work Supervisor on 29.3.1987 and as such had completed the prescribed period of 12 years as on 1.4.1999. The petitioner also submitted a detailed representation putting forward his stand to justify that an order of reversion was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. Despite that the respondent passed an order dated 24.12.2002 whereby the petitioner was reverted. It was stated in the said order that the petitioner did not even belong to the feeder cadre of Work Supervisor/Work Mistri/Surveyor as he was a Road Inspector, which was not the feeding cadre for promotion under that quota. According to the petitioner he belongs to the cadre of Work Supervisor and had worked as such for all this time. The petitioner was never paid the salary of Road Inspector and his name was shown in the seniority list maintained in the office of Municipal Corporation as well as in the State level seniority depicting the petitioner to be working as Work Supervisor and he had rightly been promoted to the post of Junior Engineer. On these premises, the petitioner raises a challenge to the order of reversion Annexure P/11 dated 24.12.2002, inter-alia, on the following grounds :-