HARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Accountant on 18.03.1983 in the Punjab State Handloom and Textiles Development Corporation at Chandigarh (in short 'the PUNTEX) in the pay scale of Rs.160-10-280-15- 400.00 with the basic pay of Rs.160.00 plus usual allowances sanctioned from time to time. The pay of the petitioner was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986, vide order dated 24.07.1991/01.08.1991. The PUNTEX-respondent No.2 was running in losses. Therefore, the petitioner was issued a letter dated 21.01.1992 (Annexure P-3), giving him three months' notice of termination of service. However, vide another letter dated 31.01.1992 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was given an offer whether he is willing to accept alternative job/employment in the other Government Departments/Corporations, subject to the condition that he would not claim any retrenchment benefits and seniority in service. The petitioner availed the said option. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed in Punjab Police Housing Corporation Limited vide letter dated 29.04.1992.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the Board of Directors of PUNTEX, vide Annexure P-5, dated 21.02.1992 decided that revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 will not be given to the employees, who opted the alternative service.

(3.) Respondent No.2-PUNTEX in the reply has taken the objection that the present writ petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as the petitioner has not made the Punjab State Handloom and Textile Development Corporation Limited as party. Only the Managing Director, the PUNTEX has been sued. Further objection was taken that PUNTEX is not a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. Further objection was also taken that earlier 27 employees of PUNTEX filed CWP No. 16017 of 1991, titled as "Vijay K. Sharma and others Vs. State of Punjab etc.", which was dismissed as withdrawn. No commercial activity is being carried by the Corporation and it has no funds to release the salary of the staff and discharge other statutory liabilities. Respondent No.2 defended its decision.