VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. HARYANA STATE FEDERATION OF CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE STORES LTD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as Superintendent in Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Whole Sale Stores Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'CONFED'), has approached this court impugning the order dated 10/12.8.2011 (Annexure P-7), whereby his seniority has been wrongly fixed and further he has been reverted from the post of Superintendent to Assistant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined the establishment of CONFED as Clerk on 28.11.1977. He was promoted as Assistant on 25.5.1981 and as Superintendent on 1.12.2009, whereas respondent No. 3 joined as Steno Typist. He further submitted that there are different channels of promotion for Clerks and Steno Typists. A Clerk with 5 years' experience is entitled to be considered for promotion as Assistant and an Assistant with 10 years' experience is eligible for promotion as Superintendent, whereas a Steno Typist with five years' experience is in feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, who with 7 years' experience is entitled to be considered for promotion as Personal Assistant. Ignoring the regular cadre of promotion, respondent No. 3 was wrongly promoted as Assistant from Steno Typist on 25.5.1981 and was placed in the seniority list of Assistants. Besides this, there were other issues regarding seniority of employees working in CONFED. Number of writ petitions were filed in this court. The same were disposed of. The matter was required to be considered by the authority while hearing all concerned. The issue was considered and disposed of vide order dated 4.4.1996 passed by the Managing Director of the CONFED, wherein it was opined that respondent No. 3 having been appointed substantively as Steno Typist could not be promoted as Assistant in terms of the Staff Service Rules of Haryana State Federation of Consumer Cooperative Whole Sales Stores Ltd., 1975 (for short, 'the Rules'), hence, could not be placed in the seniority list of Assistants. Still aggrieved against the aforesaid order, writ petitions were filed in this court, which were disposed of vide detailed order dated 7.7.2010 passed in CWP No.7574 of 1996 Vijay Mohindru v. The State of Haryana and others, wherein again while setting aside the impugned order, the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration after inviting objections and also affording personal hearing.

(3.) The submission is that after passing of the order on 26.8.1996, respondent No. 3 had been working as Steno Typist. Further grievance is that though while deciding the writ petition setting aside the earlier seniority list, this court had directed for inviting objections and affording personal hearing to all affected persons, but despite specific request made by the petitioner, personal hearing was not provided. Vide impugned order, respondent No. 3 was again taken as Assistant and considering his experience, was promoted as Superintendent. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue raised and decided by this court in the earlier writ petition was regarding seniority, which was required to be considered.