JYOTI BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 17943 of 2004 and CWP No. 7339 of 2006 both filed by the petitioner. The inter se seniority of the petitioner and the private respondents is the lis mota in the first writ petition. The second writ petition was filed against an impugned order which compelled the petitioner to opt to serve on the lower post to secure re-transfer to parent department. If the first writ petition is allowed, there would be little left to do in the subsequent petition except to declare the action taken against the petitioner as bad upon correction of disputed seniority inter se the parties i.e. the petitioner and the private respondents in the respondent Hospitality department. This Court would first take up CWP No. 17943 of 2004 for decision.

(2.) There are a large number of facts involved in both the cases which call for step by step narration to reach at the core issues which this court is called upon to adjudicate. The petitioner was appointed as a Salesgirl in 1985 in the Hospitality Department/Organization, Haryana, Chandigarh (for short 'HO'). While she worked as a Salesgirl HO upgraded the post of Salesgirl to that of Counter Clerk on 28.11.1986. The petitioner and three other salespersons became Counter Clerks by process of up-gradation of four posts and not by way of promotion. In due course the petitioner was promoted as an Assistant in the HO on 16.4.1992. The HO maintained a joint cadre of Accountants, Assistants and Junior Auditors in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. The seniority was also joint. In the joint seniority list circulated as on 1.4.1994, the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 14 while that of the 4th respondent, Raghbir Singh figures next below her at Serial No. 15. The petitioner was thus senior to Raghbir Singh with reference to date of appointment to service.

(3.) On 31.7.2001, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Haryana Rural Development Fund Administration Board, Chandigarh without taking her consent. This was done on 31.7.2001. The petitioner was one amongst five persons who were sent on deputation vide order dated 28.6.2001 to Panchayat department including the 4th respondent. This was caused due to downsizing HO because of sickness experienced in the tourism sector and resulting in privatization of a substantial part of the HO. The Board found that the petitioner and some others from her parent department were not acceptable to it. The petitioner was sent back to HO on 3.8.2001. It is, thereafter, that the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Directorate of Development and Panchayats, Haryana. This was also done without consent. However, her lien was ordered to be maintained in HO. The deputation period was fixed at one year. It was extended to 9.8.2003. In January, 2003, the petitioner represented to HO praying for repatriation to her parent department. This request was made in the background that while both the petitioner and the 4th respondent Raghbir Singh were sent together on deputation, Raghbir Singh had succeeded in securing return to his parent organization i.e., HO on 13.2.2003. The repatriation was sought on the ground that Raghbir Singh was junior to her in HO and would succeed in occupying the promotional post of Assistant. Instead of recalling the petitioner to HO, the 2nd respondent promoted the 5th respondent Santro Devi from the post of Clerk to that of Assistant vide order dated 30.1.2003. In this process she lost out to Raghbir Singh and now Santro Devi who had remained serving in HO and was foisted on her while the petitioner remained on deputation. Santro Devi's name was not even mentioned in the joint seniority list .