GOBIND RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in this case being of importance and likely to arise in other cases of repatriation of the deputationists, employees of Bhakra Beas Management Board (hereinafter called 'the BBMB') to parent States, R. S. Mongia, J. referred the case to a larger Bench vide order dated November 3, 1992. FACTS IN BRIEF: The petitioner, Gobind Ram Sharma, a Senior Scale Stenographer working with Bhakra Beas Management Board was repatriated to the Irrigation Department in the State of Haryana vide order dated July 15, 1991-Annexure P. 26 which is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner is a permanent employee of the State of Haryana and was deputed to work with the BBMB against the share quota of Haryana State in BBMB i. e. 40% of the Staff. In 1988 a policy decision was taken by the BBMB vide instruction Annexure P. 1 that the employees who were working with the BBMB on 89 days basis (ad hoc) be adjusted against their posts. The family of the petitioner consists of six members as per details given in the petition. One of them being Miss Purnima, daughter, aged about 23 years, who after qualifying Matriculation examination in 1984 and Prabhakar (Honours in Hindi) in 1985; took training in English and Hindi Typing and thus could be employed as a Clerk/hindi Typist with the BBMB. The petitioner approached the BBMB several times for appointment of his daughter since 1986 but she was not considered. The BBMB, however, recruited numerous dependent children of the employees of other departments. One of the representations for seeking employment for his daughter was submitted on January 10, 1990 - Annexure P. 2. On February 25, 1988, on 89 days basis, Purnima aforesaid was appointed by the Board. With notional breaks, her service continued upto October 28, 1989. Some of the appointment letters were produced. (Copies Annexures P. 4 to P. 6 ). Another representation of her seeking appointment was filed on November 22, 1988 (Copy Annexure P. 7 ). This request was declined on December 22, 1988. (Copy Annexure P. 8 ). Instructions were issued on April 20, 1989 (Copy Annexure P. 9) by the BBMB laying down the qualifications and experience for filling the posts of Clerks. In 1989 post of Hindi Typist was sought to be filled and petitioner's daughter applied for the same. However, the Board was not keen to select her. The test was postponed. The petitioner's daughter was, however, appointed on 89 days basis from August 1, 1989 to October 28, 1989 vide letter - Annexure P. 6. Her Service stood terminated on expiry of the aforesaid period. However, children of other employees were retained. A representation was submitted by the petitioner on January 29, 1990 (Annexure P. 11 ). On that account respondents Nos. 3 to 5 became inimical towards the petitioner and his daughter. They did not take any decision on the representation moved by petitioner's daughter and did not offer next vacancy occuring to her. Instead one Gian Prakash was transferred from Sundernagar and posted as Hindi typist at Chandigarh. Subsequently, aforesaid Gian Chand was promoted. Such was discriminatory treatment given to petitioner's daughter. Services of other employees of the Board were regularised in view of the decision in Piara Singh's case. However, petitioner's daughter's services stood terminated. Departmental action was also sought to be taken against the petitioner when on petty matters show-cause notices were sent to him. Such like letters are Annexures P. 13, P. 15 to P. 19. The petitioner submitted replies/representations thereto, copies of which are Annexures P. 20 to P. 21. In a vindictive attitude the petitioner was repatriated to the State of Haryana in the Irrigation Department. A general allegation was also leveled that the employees of the State of Haryana were being dominated and ill-treated by the employees of the Punjab State working with the BBMB. On receipt of letter-Annexure P-25 dated July 14, 1991, the petitioner made representation. However, the petitioner was occupying house which he was required to vacate immediately as directed by respondent No. 5. This action was also uncalled for a several employees were continuing to occupy such like quarters even after their transfer from the BBMB. Details of such like persons were given in the petition. It is on the basis of these allegations that the order of repatriation of the petitioner by the BBMB to Irrigation Department of State of Haryana was challenged. In the written statement filed by the BBMB and the officials, the writ petition has been contested inter alia asserting that the order of repatriation of the petitioner to the parent State of Haryana is not an order of punishment. The allegations of mala fide and bias were denied. Such an order was passed with the consultation and approval of the Irrigation Department of the State of Haryana. After repatriation the petitioner had no claim to the house allotted to him during his tenure of service with the BBMB. A replication was also filed by the petitioner re-iterating his stand as given in the writ petition.

(2.) SHRI S. C. Mohunta, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner, has raised a legal argument that the petitioner who was an employee of the State of Haryana, being allocated on re-organisation of the States as such, could not be repatriated to the State of Haryana by the BBMB unless such an action was approved by the State Government. Reliance has been placed in support of this contention on the provision of Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.

(3.) THE Bhakra Management Board was constituted for the administration, maintenance and operation of the works as mentioned in Section 79 (1) of the Act, Section 79 (4) and (6) of the Act which is relevant for the decision of the present case reads as under:-