LACHHMAN DAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 28.5.1984 passed by the respondent-State revising the date of promotion from 24.8.1972 to 21.1.1973 on the post of Head Assistant in the office of Transport Commissioner, Haryana. A further prayer has been made that the impugned order dated 28.5.1984 (Annexure P-2) be quashed and the petitioner be assigned the date of promotion as 24.8.1972 on the post of Head Assistant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as a Clerk in 1959 through the Subordinate Services Selection Board and was posted in the Transport Department. The petitioner belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. He was promoted on the post of Assistant w.e.f. 8.7.1965. On the re-organisation of the State of Punjab, a new State of Haryana was created w.e.f. 1.11.1966 and he was allocated to Haryana. On the basis of representation made by the petitioner claiming further promotion to the post of Head Assistant, he was promoted on a reserved post as Head Assistant vide order dated 29.11.1973 in pursuance to the instructions issued on 10.12.1971. A perusal of his promotion order (Annexure P-1) shows that he was given assumed date of promotion as Head Assistant w.e.f. 24.8.1972 because according to instructions dated 10.12.1971 every third vacancy in a lot of five vacancies was ear-marked for the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. As a consequence of his promotion with a deemed date of 24.8.1972, he claims to have become senior to Amrit Singh Chadha who was promoted much later and respondent No. 3 K.S. Mukhra who was promoted on 3.1.1973. The petitioner has asserted that once Amrit Singh Chadha and K.S. Mukhra were rendered juniors to the petitioner, then they could not be given promotion on the post of Superintendent on 20.1.1978 and 10.3.1978 respectively without first considering the case of the petitioner. He has stated to have made representation in this regard. His representation was accepted and he was given assumed date of promotion as Superintendent as 20.1.1978, the date which has been given to Amrit Singh Chadha. His seniority was also fixed over and above Amrit Singh Chadha. However, the order giving deemed date of promotion to the petitioner was challenged in appeal by K.S. Mukhra which resulted into passing of impugned order on 28.5.1984 withdrawing the order giving assumed date of promotion to the petitioner as 20.1.1978. Shri K.S. Mukhra was aggrieved by the order as he was reverted from the post of Superintendent to the post of Head Assistant. Accepting his claim was accepted which was to the effect that after the issuance of instructions dated 10.12.1971, the first vacancy arose on 1.3.1972, when Joginder Singh Head Assistant was promoted and the second and third vacancy accrued when Neta Ram and K.C. Gupta Head Assistants were promoted on 1.1.1973 on the post of Superintendent. It was further explained that against the first vacancy dated 1.3.1972 K.C. Gupta was promoted as Head Assistant, the second vacancy was filled up by promotion of K.S. Mukhra and on the third vacancy O.P. Nandwani was promoted as Head Assistant. The operative part of the impugned order dated 28.5.1984 (Annexure P-2) reads as under :-

(3.) On account of some clarifications required in the written statement, this Court on 24.3.2004 has directed the respondent-State to file an additional affidavit of a responsible officer. The affidavit has been filed on 6.4.2004 making the factual position crystal clear. After issuance of instructions on 10.12.1971, the following vacancies had arisen and were filled up accordingly :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_165_LAWS(P&H)7_2004(1).html</FRM>