GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four writ petitions involve determination of connected issues and while admitting these writ petitions the Court had directed hearing of the cases together. Therefore, all these petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) In C.W.P. 8719 of 1988 petitioner Gulab Singh has prayed for the quashing of orders Annexures P.1 and P.3 by which respondent No. 4 has been assigned seniority over him and his representation against the seniority of respondent No. 4 has been rejected. Petitioner has stated that he joined service as Constable on 3.4.1961. He was promoted as Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector and then as Inspector of Police on the basis of his merit and seniority. Petitioner has pleaded that respondent No. 4 joined service as Constable on 2.8.1958 and was promoted on various posts after the dates of his promotions. On the basis of comparative statement of service particulars given out in para No. 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that he is senior to respondent No. 4. However, in the gradation list of Inspectors showing the position as on 1.1.1984, respondent No. 4 was shown senior to the petitioner. By order Annexure P.1 dated 28.8.1986 respondent No. 4 was given retrospective service benefits of confirmation and promotion and was, thus, made senior to the petitioner. The representations submitted by the petitioner against the seniority assigned to respondent No. 4 came to be rejected by the Director General of Police, Haryana, vide Annexure P.3 dated 26.4.1988. Petitioner has questioned Annexures P.1 and P.3 on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of his constitutional right of equality before law.

(3.) In their reply, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have stated that one Mohinder Singh had superseded the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 at the time of preparation of seniority list of Head Constables. This action was challenged by Gurdev Singh by way of a civil suit which was decreed by the trial Court and the appeals filed by the Government were dismissed by the Additional District Judge as well as the High Court. This necessitated the passing of order Annexure P.1 to implement the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge on 12.6.1975. Respondents have pleaded that failure of the petitioner to challenge higher seniority assigned to Mohinder Singh disentitles him from claiming any relief at this belated stage. They have also pleaded that the writ petition be dismissed because the petitioner has not impleaded all those persons as parties to the writ petition who are likely to be affected by the acceptance of his claim of seniority over respondent No. 4.