OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prior to 1995 there were no rules governing service in the Haryana Roadways and employees were in non-rule territory. Ram Karan, Washing Boy on a request application submitted by him was re-designated as Helper Mechanic on May 04, 1984. Based on this administrative precedent, the petitioner who is senior to Ram Karan as Washing Boy made an application likewise for change of designation on Jan. 11, 1989. His case was processed and the following remarks were put on his application in the noting:-

(2.) The recommendation made to the higher authorities was favourable to the petitioner but the ultimate result of the exercise ended in rejection vide order made on March 05, 1989 but the same was not conveyed to him in writing. The legal effect of which was that it was no order in the eyes of law capable of being challenged in Court. The seniority list of Helpers reveals that the name of Ram Karan figured at seniority position 37 as against the name of the petitioner figuring at Sr. No.21. The petitioner was appointed to service as a Washing Boy on June 22, 1982 whilst Ram Karan later on May 14, 1983. The seniority list was common to Washing Boy, Helper (Tyreman) and Helper (Mechanical). The seniority list was issued on Dec. 24, 1987.

(3.) Aggrieved by discriminatory treatment as against Ram Karan the petitioner approached this Court in CWP No.800 of 1998 impleading Ram Karan as the 4th respondent in the petition. The prayer was for directions to promote the petitioner as Assistant Fitter from the date on which person juniors to him were promoted as Mechanic/Assistant Fitter. He claimed consequential benefits also towards fixation of pay and demanded payment of arrears of salary etc. The writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on Jan. 20, 1998 without going into the merits of the case at the stage when the petition was brought. Their Lordships considered it appropriate to dispose of the petition by directing the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated May 15, 1997 within a period of four months from receipt of a copy of the order either from the Court or from the petitioner whichever was earlier. It was ordered that in case the petitioner was found entitled prima facie to the relief claimed then a final decision be taken in the presence of persons likely to be effected.