BALBIR SINGH MAKKER Vs. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER arguing the matter for quite some time, when we were about to pronounce the orders, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that respondent No. 6 had earlier filed a civil suit claiming that his parent committee was at Goniana which was opposed by the Mandi Board and was dismissed. Although the fact of dismissal of the suit was known to the petitioner at the commencement of the arguments, for reasons best known to him, he did not care to take the Bench into confidence till it became evident that the writ petition is likely to be dismissed. We would be fully satisfied in dismissing the writ petition and making some adverse comments with regard to the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We, however, refrain from doing so considering the young age of the learned counsel and with the hope that in future he would learn to make a candid disclosure of the relevant facts to the Bench at the relevant time. In the interest of justice, we adjourn this writ petition to enable the learned counsel to place on record the pleadings of the Civil Suit together with the judgment of the civil court.

(2.) ADJOURNED to 14.12.2005.

(3.) A perusal of Annexure P-2 makes it abundantly clear that the policy decision has been taken by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board on 11.11.1982 for giving service benefits to the employees who are transferred from one Market Committee to another. As a policy, it was decided that such an employee will get benefits of that Committee where he was posted on 30.3.1982 (afternoon) or 1.4.1982 (forenoon). It is not disputed that respondent No. 6 was initially appointed by the Market Committee, Bhucho on 5.3.2004. He was promoted as Accountant from the post of Mandi Supervisor and posted at Market Committee, Goniana. Thereafter, by an order dated 26.9.2005, he has been transferred to Market Committee, Giddarbaha with the observations that his present Committee shall be Market Committee at Goniana. In view of the aforesaid, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present Committee of respondent No. 6 should be treated at Bhucho, the market committee in which he was initially appointed.