RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Niwas through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash letter issued by Joint Secretary to Government Haryana dated 11.10.1989, Annexure P3, as also letter dated 9.11.1989 Annexure P4 as also a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Joint Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department to fix his seniority after Amin Chand and before Megh Raj in seniority list Annexure P2. The relief asked for as has been noticed above stems from the following facts.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed in the Rehabilitation Department in the State of Haryana on the recommendations of the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana on 22.4.1979 as Clerk on regular basis, on which post later, he was confirmed. He was promoted to the post of Assistant with effect from 26.9.1983, again on regular basis against the vacant post. He continued to work as Assistant upto June 26, 1991 when he was promoted on the post of Deputy Superintendent on ad hoc basis and adjusted against a vacant post of Naib Tehsildar (Rehabilitation) Rohtak. However, till the post of Naib Tehsildar was to be filled, he was asked to work at headquarters Chandigarh in legal cell. It is pleaded that there are three posts of Deputy Superintendent and one post of Naib Tehsildar (Peshi) at headquarters. These posts are to filled by way of promotion from amongst the Assistants posted at headquarters at Chandigarh. The Assistants are promoted to the posts of Deputy Superintendents as also to the posts of Naib Tehsildars (Peshi). The Naib Tehsildar (Peshi) is also promoted as Deputy Superintendent, even though the said post i.e. Naib Tehsildar (Peshi) is higher in pay scale than the post of Assistant and lower than that of Deputy Superintendent in the pay scale. Joint Secretary to Government of Haryana issued letter dated 7.7.1980 in pursuance of notification dated 29.2.1980 granting selection grade and showing the seniority of the petitioner and other Clerks working in the Department. The name of respondent No. 3 Shri Jagdish Singh appears at Serial No. 7 whereas that of the petitioner at serial No. 5. It is pleaded that out of three posts of Deputy Superintendents at headquarters, two posts are lying vacant and on the third post Shri Tara Chand is working. That was the position when the petition was filed, whereas at present one post of Deputy Superintendent is occupied by Tara Chand. The next man in seniority i.e. Ram Rattan has joined some other department. The second and third posts of Deputy Superintendents are occupied by Chandgi Ram and Amin Chand. Respondent No. 3 is working on the post of Naib Tehsildar (Peshi) although he is at serial No. 7 in the seniority list and inasmuch as the petitioner is higher in seniority than respondent-Jagdish Singh, he claims the fourth post of Naib Tehsildar (Peshi).

(3.) The relief aforesaid is sought to be strengthened by pleading that respondent-Jagdish Singh has been wrongly given benefit of military service from 26.10.1962 to 26.4.1967 and made senior to the petitioner. If the benefit of service rendered by him in the military is not given to him, obviously the petitioner would be senior and, thus, entitled to the post of Naib Tehsildar (Peshi). With a view to make out a case for non-grant of benefit of military service to respondent No. 3, it is pleaded that respondent No. 3 joined the Rehabilitation Department on the recommendations of the Subordinate Service Selection Board from the quota of Ex-serviceman on 15.2.1977 as Clerk on regular basis. He served Indian Army from 12.9.1961 to 26.4.1967 and was discharged from military service at his own request. He claimed the benefit of emergency period from 22.11.1962 to 26.4.1967 on the ground that he had served in the army during the Emergency period and was, therefore, entitled to the concessions in terms of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 . The claim of respondent No. 3 was allowed by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 11.10.1989 in accordance with the judgment passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 2625 of 1985, Sushil Kumar Ahluwalia etc. v. State of Haryana etc. It is in this manner, as noticed above, that respondent No. 3 was made senior to the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 in consequence of this seniority over and above the petitioner was promoted as Naib Tehsil (Peshi) on 5.12.1990 with effect from 28.4.1988.