RAGHVIR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk/Typist on daily wages in the office of Market Committee, Bhadson (Patiala) (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). Thereafter, he was appointed against this post for 89 days. On the expiry of these 89 days, petitioner was further given appointment for 89 days. Before the expiry of second extension, petitioner along with other persons was appointed on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600/- vide resolution No. 6 dated 10.4.1987. While the petitioner was working against this post, one Harbans Lal, Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector, expired. On his death, the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector, fell vacant. In order to fill up this post, one Kuldip Kumar was promoted from the post of Auction Recorder, and as a consequence thereof, post of Auction Recorder fell vacant vide resolution No. 5 dated 9.7.1987, the Committee (respondent No. 2 herein) promoted the petitioner to the post of Auction Recorder, being the seniormost clerk amongst other Clerks. At the time when petitioner was promoted as Auction Recorder, the pay scale of this post was Rs. 450-800/-. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 450-800/-, he was given the pay scale of Rs. 400-600/-, i.e. the pay scale of a Clerk, which the petitioner was drawing before his promotion as Auction Recorder. Aggrieved against this action, petitioner submitted representations, stating therein that he be given the benefit of Auction Recorder's grade with effect from the date he was promoted as such. The committee vide letter No. 22 dated 1.1.1991, sought opinion of the Punjab Mandi Board (in short, the Board) on the point that as to from which date the petitioner be given the benefit of Auction Recorder's grade. The Board vide its letter dated 18.3.1991 asked the committee to proceed in accordance with the rules/instructions. Thereafter, the Committee vide its resolution No. 4 dated 25.7.1991 decided to give to the petitioner the benefit of Auction Recorder's grade after three years because as per Board's circular No. 38 dated 16.2.1987, three years' experience as a clerk was essential for making the promotion to the post of Auction Recorder. At the time when resolution No. 4 dated 25.7.1991 was passed, the pay scale of Auction Recorder, after revision, was Rs. 1,500-2,640/-, and therefore, approval under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1961 (in short the 1961 Act) was required. Accordingly, the Committee vide its resolution No. 9 dated 30.9.1991 sent the matter to the Board for necessary approval. The Board vide its order No. 1498 (1992) dated 10.8.1992, annulled the Committee's resolution No. 8 dated 30.9.1991, being in violation of the Punjab Market Committee Class III Service Rules, 1989, (in short the 1989 Rules). This order (Annexure P-9) of the Board is being impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that vide order, Annexure P-9, he has been reverted back to the post of Clerk as the Board opined that the petitioner has not completed five years of service as Clerk as provided in Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules. According to the petitioner, the Rules came into force in the year 1989, whereas he stood promoted as Auction Recorder in the year 1987 and, therefore, these Rules cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of the petitioner.

(3.) In reply, the respondents have stated that the resolution promoting the petitioner to the post of Auction Recorder was annulled by an order passed by the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board because under the Rules, petitioner should have an experience of working as a Clerk for a minimum period of five years, and the Rules have precedence over the instructions which have no statutory force and the promotion of the petitioner is to be regulated by the Rules. Respondents have also taken an objection that an appeal against this order was maintainable, and since the petitioner did not avail of the remedy of an appeal, the present writ petition is not competent.