HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Hans Raj was appointed as a Store Munshi on work-charged basis with the respondents on April 17, 1980. His services were terminated on July 17,1987 which led th petitioner to file the present writ petition. On July 30, 1987, notice of motion was issued for April 14,1987 and the termination of services of the petitioner was stayed till further orders. While the case was pending at the notice of motion stage, the order of termination of services of the petitioner was withdrawn on September 7, 1987 (Annexure P.6 with the amended writ petition) and he was reverted from the post of Store Munshi to the post of Store Chaukidar. The formal order to that effect was passed by the Executive Engineer on September 7,1987 (Annexure P.9 with the writ petition). The passing of the order of reversion of the petitioner, necessitated amendment of the writ petition to impugn the said order, ultimately the writ petition was admitted, after amendment, on January 20,1988 and the stay was ordered to continue subject to the condition that if the post is not available in the Circle in which the petitioner is working, he can be transferred to another circle as work Munshi. Unfortunately, the petitioner died on August 15, 1983 and the Legal Representatives have been ordered to be brought on record in place of the petitioner.

(2.) After the stay order was made to continue by the order of the Motion Bench dated January 20, 1988, a letter was written by the Superintending Engineer Canal Lining Circle, Ferozepur to the Chief Engineer (Lining), Irrigation works, Punjab, Chandigarh on February 1,1988 informing the latter that there was no vacant post of Store Munshi/work Munshi in the circle, therefore, in view of the stay order granted by this Court on January 20, 1988, petitioner Hans Raj, be posted in some other Circle where the post of Store Munshi was available. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the stay order, the petitioner was made to work as a Store Chaukidar and not Store Munshi and was in fact paid the emoluments of Store Chaukidar. He has submitted that a legal notice was also issued by the counsel for the petitioner to the respondent to comply with the stay order and later on even a representation was addressed to the Executive Engineer on September 9, 1988 to post the petitioner as a Store Munshi, Still he was only allowed to continue as Store Chaukidar.

(3.) In view of the fact that petitioner had died during the pendency of the writ petition, it may not be necessary to go into the legality of the order of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Store Munshi to Store Chaukidar. Suffice it to mention that till the decision of the writ petition, by virtue of the stay order, petitioner was entitled to work as a Store Munshi and naturally would have be entitled to draw the pay as such. From the letter written by the Superintending Engineer, Canal Lining Circle to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation works Punjab on February 1,1988, it cannot be said that there was any mis-understanding on the part of the respondents regarding the interpretation of the stay order. It was clearly understood that the petitioner was to be posted as a Store Munshi by virtue of the stay order. Depriving the petitioner to work as a Store Munshi in spite of the stay order naturally effected his emoluments which he would have drawn as a Store Munshi.