JASPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although Jaspal Singh who originally filed the writ petition, died during its pendency, his legal representatives have now come up and got the same revived. Jaspal Singh was working as Cleaner with the State of Haryana in the Irrigation Department, S.Y.L. Circle. On Jan. 30,1992 vide order (Annexure P-l) he was promoted as Jeep Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040 plus Rs. 100.00 as special pay w.e.f. March 1, 1992 against the vacancy caused on the retirement of Darshan Lal, Jeep Driver. This order was passed on Jan. 28,1992. Jaspal Singh petitioner, thus took over as Jeep Driver on March, 1, 1992. Thereafter, order was passed on Aug. 12,1992 reverting him to the post of a cleaner. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition. It may be observed that the time of filing the writ petition, Jaspal Singh petitioner was admitted in the Hospital as he developed cancer. Ultimately he died on April 18,1993. The legal representatives of Jaspal Singh are thus, interested in getting the order of reversion set aside as their right to claim family pension, depends upon the decision of the writ petition.

(2.) On Notice of motion having been issued written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has been filed, inter alia, asserting in paragraph 3 that order of reversion was passed in order to accommodate the drivers of other Circle who had become surplus. In para 7 of the written statement it was stated that Jaspal Singh-petitioner was promoted provisionally drawing to the vacancy which are going to be caused on the retirement of Darshan Lal, Jeep Driver and Jaspal Singh had no right to claim the post.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the stand taken up by the respondents is not supported by law. It is incorrectly stand in the statement that Jaspal Singh was provisionally promoted as Jeep Driver while passing order Annexure P-l. As perusal of the aforesaid order does not indicate so. We take it that when Darshan Lal, Jeep Driver was to retire, a vacancy in the Circle had occurred which was to be filed by promotion when Jaspal Singh was so appointed Jaspal Singh petitioner who was treated as on probation was so promoted against the substantive vacancy. It can not thus, be stated that Jaspal Singh had no right on the post on which he was promoted. No doubt Jaspal Singh remained posted as such from Aug. 12, 1992 and had not completed the period of probation. However, he could be reverted to his parent post if his work was not satisfactory. There is no allegation that on such like ground, Jaspal Singh was reverted. Ground suggested in the written statement is extraneous to revert the petitioner from substantive post against which he was posted on probation.