RAJPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of orders dated 21.9.2011 (Annexure P-10) and dated 23.8.2012 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.2, whereby, a direction has been given to respondent No.3 to change the seniority of the petitioner. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider promotion on the basis of seniority given to the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that in the year 1996 a new Division i.e. Faridkot Division was created out of Ferozepur Division. No permanent staff was appointed by the Government of Punjab as at the initial stage staff was deputed from other offices. The petitioner was also working as Clerk in Deputy Commissioner's Office, Mansa since 24.3.1998. In the year 2007, he was working as Junior Assistant in Sub Tehsil Jhunir, District Mansa. On 9.4.2007, he was deputed to work in the office of Commissioner, Faridkot Division by Commissioner, Faridkot. He joined there on 11.4.2007. On 7.9.2007, the State Government with the approval of Governor transferred 14 posts to office of Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot from the offices of Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, Faridkot and Mansa. All these posts were also ordered to be abolished from their parent Department. On 14.11.2007, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Principal Secretary, Punjab Government ordered the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis against the post vacated by one Sh. Mahinder Singh, Junior Assistant, whose post was transferred to the office of Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide order dated 7.9.2007 as he had taken voluntary retirement on 31.5.2007. On 2.9.2008, a tentative seniority list of employees of Commissioner Office, Faridkot Division, Faridkot was prepared and objections were invited. Respondent No.4- Surinder Pal Singh, Junior Assistant had also filed objections to the seniority of the petitioner and after considering the objections, a final seniority list was prepared on 19.3.2010. In the final seniority list, the petitioner was shown senior from one Surinder Pal Singh, Junior Assistant but it was never challenged by him. On the basis of final seniority list dated 19.3.2010, the petitioner was promoted from Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant on 22.3.2010. On 15.9.2010, respondent No.4 (Surinder Pal Singh) without challenging the seniority list dated 19.3.2010 filed representation before Financial Commissioner (Revenue)-cum-Secretary and challenged the promotion order of the petitioner dated 22.3.2010, who vide order dated 21.9.2011 directed to reconsider the promotion of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before this Court by way of filing C.W.P. No. 19467 of 2011, which was disposed on 10.5.2012 with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation after hearing both the parties. In compliance of order passed by this Court on 10.5.2012, the petitioner moved representation to respondent No.2 to decide the matter afresh but after hearing the petitioner, respondent No.2 vide its order dated 23.8.2012 rejected the claim of the petitioner and ordered that there is no need to review or revise order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 21.9.2011. Orders dated 21.9.2011 and 23.8.2012 are subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the final seniority list of the employees of Commissioner Office, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, the petitioner was senior to respondent No.4. The seniority list was finalised after considering the objections filed by the employees including respondent No.4. The petitioner was also promoted on the basis of said final seniority list. Neither the seniority list nor promotion order of petitioner was challenged by respondent No.4. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.4 has no right to challenge the order of promotion of the petitioner subsequently as the seniority was fixed after considering the objections filed by the employees including respondent No.4. Learned counsel also contends that vide order dated 7.9.2007, all the employees were transferred along with their posts and their posts in parent departments were abolished. No where it was mentioned that these employees will leave their seniority in previous offices. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, the past service of the petitioner has not been considered, whereas, he was transferred with post and cannot be compared with other employees, who were only transferred from one department to other department with their acceptance. The impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner is also violative of principles of natural justice and against Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Condition of Service) Rules, 1994, which are having overriding effect on all the departments.