ROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.1991 (Annexure P-5) passed by Chief Engineer (Canals) Irrigation Works, Punjab, whereby the better and preferential claim of the petitioners for absorption as Junior Engineers, with effect from the date their juniors were absorbed, was denied. The facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition, can be put into narrow compass. Petitioners were diploma holders and they were appointed as Supervisors on work charged basis for the purpose of Construction of Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal Project (for short 'SYL Canal Project'). They had been continuing without any break in service and to the satisfaction of their Seniors. There was no complaint against their work and conduct. Since some of the projects got completed or were near completion, a large number of Engineers like the petitioners were declared surplus or were likely to be declared surplus, respondent-State took a policy decision dated 23.11.1990 (Annexure P-1) to absorb the surplus employees in the different departments of the State Government. The list of surplus employees were sought and based on the information supplied by the competent authorities, respondent No. 3 issued promotion order dated 08.02.1991 (Annexure P-2), promoting as many as 41 work charged Supervisors/work Mistaries as Junior Engineers including respondents No. 4 to 6, who were admittedly junior to the petitioners.

(2.) In the interregnum, another communication dated 06.12.1996 (Annexure P-3) came to be issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, to the Chief Engineer Canal, requesting to give preference to the experienced diploma/degree holders, who were similarly situated like the petitioners. Aggrieved, petitioners approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 9021 of 1991, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.07.1991, granting liberty to the petitioners to make a representation and the respondents were directed to decide the same by passing a speaking order.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. An additional affidavit dated 15.07.2013 of Dr. N.R. Goyal, Chief Engineer Drainage, Irrigation Works, Punjab was also filed. Later on, the writ petition came to be admitted for regular hearing. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.