M.L. BINDRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the second round of litigation, the petitioner has questioned the legality of Annexure P-17 by which respondent Nos. 3 to 7 have been assigned seniority above him in the cadre of Superintendents, Public Relations Department, Haryana. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure P-17, and also for issue of a direction to respondent No.1 to promote him as Deputy Director, Public Relations with effect from 1.7.1992 along with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No.3475 of 1992, which was allowed by this Court on 29.5.1992 (Annexure P-13) and a direction was given to respondent No.1 to prepare inter-se seniority between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 afresh after giving opportunity of representation and personal hearing to all the affected persons. In pursuance of the judgment of this Court, respondent No.1 issued show-cause notice (Annexure P-14), dated 14.8.1992 and after considering the representations filed by the petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 5 and after hearing them, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned order. In order to determine as to whether the petitioner is entitled to succeed in his challenge to the order (Annexure P-17) it is necessary to set out the facts relating to the services of the petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 7.'

(3.) Petitioner joined service as Clerk on 29.1.1959 in the Public Relations Department of the then State of Punjab. He was promoted as Steno-typist on 13.6.1960 as then as Junior Scale Stenographer with effect from 31.5.1961 (pay scale of Rs.100- 175). Upon reorganisation of the State of Punjab and creation of the State of Haryana, the petitioner opted for the State of Haryana. He was promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer (pay scale Rs.116-225) with effect from 1.11.1966 and was confirmed on that post with effect from 1.11.1967. He was appointed as Assistant w.e.f. 1.4.1969 vide Annexure P-1. This post he held upto 8.7.1970. With effect from 9.7.1970, the petitioner was appointed as Information Assistant. After about two months he was again posted as Assistant with effect from 16.9.1970. On this post he worked upto 21.1.1971. He was posted as Staff Reporter with effect from 28.1.1971. He was regularly appointed as Staff Reporter on 5.9.1974 after selection by the Subordinate Services Selection Board. He was promoted as Personal Assistant with effect from 10.12.1979 but was again posted as Staff Reporter on 23.1.1980. In between, he remained posted as Assistant From 7.12.1978 to 19.4.1979. On 7.3.1980, Director, Public Relations, Haryana, issued order (Annexure P-4) promoting the petitioner and two others as Superintendents in the pay scale of Rs.1000-1500. Appointment of the petitioner as Superintendent was regularised by the Government vide order (Annexure P-6) dated 18.7.1989 which was issued on the advice of the Haryana Public Service Commission. Petitioner's promotion on the post of Superintendent was regularized with effect from 7.3.1980. The post of Superintendent held by the petitioner and four others was declared as gazetted by order dated 22.1.1986 (Annexure P-5). In the seniority lists of Superintendents issued vide Annexures P-7 and P-8, showing the position of the members of service as on 1.1.1988 and 31.1.1989, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.2 and private respondents were placed down below. After about two years of the issue of Annexure P-8, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 30.7.1991 to the petitioner intimating him that the Government has decided to refix his inter-se seniority with respondents 3 to 7. In Annexure P-10, the petitioner was placed below all the private respondents and he was called upon to file his objections. After the petitioner had submitted his representation, the Government issued order (Annexure P-12) dated 24.9.1991 and finalised the inter-se seniority of the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 placing all of them above the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.3475 of 1992 and, as already mentioned above, the same was allowed by this Court on 29.5.1992.