SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 6.8.1991 (Annexure P-10) whereby representation of the petitioner with regard to fixation of his seniority was dismissed. As a consequence of the quashing of said order, he is also seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-fix his seniority.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the department of Consolidation in the erstwhile State of Pepsu on 16.7.1952. Petitioner continued to work as such till tie State of Pepsu was merged in the new State of Punjab. He worked in the State of Punjab as a confirmed employee of the Consolidation Department. On 1.11.1966, State of Punjab was reorganised and as a result thereof petitioner was allocated to the State of Haryana. Government decided to wind up the Department of Consolidation and a decision with regard to absorption of the staff working in the Consolidation Department was taken. Vide letter dated 15.7.1968, the Deputy Secretary to Government of Haryana informed all concerned that at the time of winding up of the Consolidation Department, the Government had decided that the staff which would become surplus, would be absorbed in the Settlement Organisation of the Revenue Department. Consequently, a number of Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers have been absorbed as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars. Likewise, Head Assistant, Assistants, Clerks, Kanungos, Patwaries and Peons etc. have been/are being absorbed against equivalent posts. For all intents and purposes, including pay etc., this absorption is to be treated as transfer and not fresh appointment by the Settlement Department. On 15.7.1968, petitioner was absorbed in the Settlement Organisation of the Revenue Department. Vide order dated 5.9.1969, he was transferred as a Revenue Patwari. In the Gradation list issued with regard to the Officers/Officials of the Consolidation Department as on 1.10.1970, the name of the petitioner did not find mention. Vide order dated 10.11.1978 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was transferred to Consolidation Department. In this order, it was mentioned that the officials transferred to Consolidation Department shall keep their liens on their present posts in the respective districts. Again the seniority list of petitioner (sic) the Department of Consolidation and Holdings as on 9.7.1980, petitioner was not shown to be an employee of the Consolidation Department. Vide order dated 17.2.1986 of Settlement & Consolidation Officers (sic) Bhiwani petitioner was appointed as Peshi Kanungo-Tehsildar-cum-Consolidation Officer Bhiwani. In the seniority list of Kanungo in the Bhiwani Circle circulated on 3.11.1989, the date of appointment of the petitioner as Kanungo was shown as 282.1986 and the Department to which he belongs was shown as Revenue Department, having felt aggrieved of the date of his appointment being shown as 28.2.1986, the petitioner made a representation on 1.12.1989 in which he submitted that he is senior to all those Kanungos shown at Serial Nos.21, 23, 27, 28, 32 and 34 in the seniority list of 1970. According to him, they were all Sub- Inspectors or Patwaries in the year 1953-54 whereas he was Sub-Inspector in the year 1952. While his representation was pending, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Consolidation Officer on 31.10.1989 on ad hoc basis and he retired as such on 31.10.1990. Since his representation had not been decided, he filed Civil Writ Petition No.14760 of 1990 and vide order dated 16.11.1990 respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with rules by passing a speaking order. Respondents vide impugned order rejected the representation of the petitioner. Though in the order, it has been conceded that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Consolidation Department on 16.7.1952 and other employees i.e. respondents No.3 to 11 were appointed later than him, yet he could not be considered because his name did not find mention in the Gradation List of Consolidation Department as he stood transferred to the Revenue Department. His representation has also been rejected on the ground that after coming to the Revenue Department, his lien remained with the Revenue Department. Thus it has been held that he has been correctly given the date of promotion as Kanungo with effect from 28.2.1986 and as Assistant Consolidation Officer with effect from 31.10.1989. In the written statement, respondents have reiterated the stand taken by them while deciding the representation of the petitioner.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. The matter in issue has come to be covered by Full Bench judgment given in Kartar Singh and Others versus State of Punjab and Others, 1989 4 SLR 340. Before the Full Bench, Patwaries of Consolidation Department on their retrenchment were permanently absorbed in the Revenue Department as Patwaries. They were denied the benefit of service rendered in the Consolidation Department. The action of the Government in denying them this benefit was quashed and it was held as under:-