GURDEV SINGH Vs. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and Respondent No. 3 have a dispute regarding seniority. The petitioner having joined about three months prior to Respondent No. 3 on daily wages claims to be senior to Respondent No. 3 in spite of the fact that both of them had been appointed on regular basis with effect from March 2,1987. The petitioner's representation against the action of the respondent-Committee having been rejected by the Punjab Mandi Board, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) In the writ statement filed on behalf of the Board, it has been averred that in view of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Punjab Market Committee (Class III) Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the period of service rendered 6n daily wages or on ad-hoc basis cannot be taken into consideration. It has been further pointed out that since both the officials had been appointed on regular basis and had joined on the same date, Respondent No. 3, who was older in age has been "treated as senior.

(3.) Mr. Jasbir Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that in view of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules, the seniority of the members of the Service has to be determined by the length of continuous service. To this extent he is right. However, the contention ignores the 'note' below the rule wherein it is specifically provided that the "seniority of the members of the service who have been appointed on purely adhoc basis or on daily wages before the commencement of these rules shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment." In view of this clear provisions, the period of service rendered on daily wages or on adhoc basis cannot be taken into consideration. Consequently, the plea raised by the learned counsel is rejected.