JATINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is a Clerk in Market Committee, Nabha, is aggrieved of order dated 23.1.1990 (Annexure P-3) whereby he was transferred from Market Committee, Nabha, to Market Committee, Bhadson, and order dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure P.4) whereby he was relieved from Market Committee, Nabha, to join duty at Market Committee, Bhadson and also order, Annexure P-8, whereby his representation in regard to seniority over respondents No. 6 to 9 was rejected. In brief, the facts are that petitioner vide order dated 6.2.1987 was appointed as Clerk on ad-hoc basis for 89 days in the Market Committee, Nabha. According to the petitioner, he joined as such on 7.2.1987. His ad-hoc appointment was extended for another period of 89 days, whereafter he alongwith others was appointed on regular basis vide office order dated 16.5.1987 and the probation period was for one year on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. Further, according to him, he joined his duty as Clerk on regular basis at Nabha on 18.5.1987 (AN). The services of one Harbans Singh were terminated by Market Committee, Nabha, who challenged the order of termination. The termination order of Harbans Singh was set aside and he was taken back in service by Market Committee, Nabha. As a consequence thereof, petitioner, vide order dated 23.1.1990, was adjusted/transferred as Clerk against a vacant post of Auction Recorded, at Market Committee, Bhadson. He was also allowed benefit of total service rendered at Market Committee, Nabha. Pursuant to this order, petitioner joined as Clerk at Market Committee, Bhadson, on 30.1.1990 against the vacant post of Auction Recorded. Three Clerks, namely, Harminder Singh, Sukhvinder Singh and Gurmit Singh working in Market Committee, Bhadson, filed suit for declaration, impugning the order of adjustment/transfer of the petitioner to Market Committee, Bhadson, and also fixing his seniority. They also sought temporary injunction for restraining the defendants therein from promoting the petitioner as Auction Recorder in Market Committee, Bhadson, without first promoting them. The Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Nabha, vide his order dated, dismissed the application for temporary injunction. In appeal, order of the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Nabha, was maintained by the District Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 8.11.1990. Then Civil Revision No.3114 of 1990 was preferred in this Court and the same was disposed of by I.S. Tiwana, J (as his Lordship then was) on 192.1991. The order passed in revision reads thus :-

(2.) Pursuant to order dated 2.5.1991, petitioner was adjusted at Market Committee, Nabha, where the petitioner joined on 6.5.1991, but he was asked to draw salary from Market Committee, Bhadson. Two grievances have been made in this writ petition; firstly, that the Market Committee, Nabha, had no jurisdiction to transfer/adjust petitioner at Bhadson, and secondly, he has not been paid salary w.e.f. November, 1991, by the Market Committee, Nabha, where he is working since 6.5.1991. The other grievance is that after regularisation of his services along with others, he joined his duties as Clerk on 185.1987 (AN), whereas respondents No.6 to 9 joined as such on 19.5,1987 (AN) and in view of Rule 10 of the Rules which provides that seniority interest of the members of service in each cadre of service shall be determined Committee-wise by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of service, he having joined earlier to respondents No.6 to 9, is senior to them but in the seniority list he has been shown to be their junior. His representation in this regard was dismissed by respondent No.2 by a non-speaking order, i.e. Annexure P-8.

(3.) It is not being disputed at the Bar that pursuant to order dated 2.5.1991 passed in Civil Misc. No.3329-C-II of 1991 in Civil Revision No.3114 of 1990, petitioner has joined as Clerk in Market Committee, Nabha w.e.f. 6.5.1991 and he has also been given continuity of service from the date he was appointed as Clerk on regular basis. In regard to the grievance of petitioner regarding non-payment of salary w.e.f. November, 1991, counsel for Market Committee has stated that the Audit Department has raised some objection regarding his salary. Entitlement of petitioner to get salary for the said period is not being denied. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that he is senior to respondents No.6 to 9, I find that representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by respondent No.2 by a non-speaking order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to pay salary to the petitioner, if not paid, for the period he has not been paid salary. Respondent No.2 is also directed to decide the representation afresh by passing a speaking order, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner, wherein he was disputed the seniority of respondents No.6 to 9 shall be decided within six months from the date of communication of receipt of order of this court. No costs.Ordered accordingly.