DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the petitioner who was recruited as a Sub Inspector in the Department of Consolidation on July 16, 1953 and was absorbed in the Revenue Department as a Clerk on October 1, 1973 entitled to the benefit of the service rendered by him for a period of about 20 years in the Department of Consolidation ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On July 16, 1953, the petitioner was recruited as a Sub Inspector in the Department of Consolidation. On December 11, 1972 the Government asked the Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda to absorb the petitioner as a clerk. On September 21, 1973, the Deputy Commissioner issued an order by which it was decided to absorb the five ''retrenched employees'' of the Consolidation Department in the Revenue Department. In pursuance of this order, the petitioner joined as a clerk in the Revenue Department on October 1, 1973. About 3 years later a tentative list was issued on September 3, 1976 in which the petitioner was assigned his position on the basis of his joining service on October 1, 1973. He represented. On January 1, 1980, the representation was rejected and the tentative seniority list was declared final. On March 21, 1980, the petitioner submitted representation to the Commissioner. It was followed by a reminder. On April 16, 1981, the Commissioner passed an order directing that ''official should be given seniority w.e.f. 16.7.1953 instead of 1.10.1973 in accordance with the instructions circulated vide letter No.75-CHI-77/11137 dated 21st July, 1978. Seniority list may be revised accordingly under intimation to the undersigned''. This decision of the Commissioner was not implemented in spite of the fact that the petitioner submitted various representations. In fact, the petitioner alleges that various persons junior to him were promoted. Still further, when the cadre of clerks was re-organised into senior and junior clerks, the petitioner's name was placed amongst the junior clerks. On these facts the petitioner claims that he is entitled to fixation of his seniority on the basis of his original date of appointment as Sub Inspector on July 16, 1953 and that he is entitled to promotion w.e.f. the date of persons junior to him were promoted. He prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to determine his seniority ''from 16.7.1953 the date of joining in the Consolidation Department .......''. He also prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or a direction ''to quash the promotions made by the respondents by-passing the seniority of the petitioner''.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been stated by way of a preliminary objections that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the letter of appointment in which it had been categorically stipulated that the ''seniority shall count from the date of joining in this office''. A copy of the letter has been produced as Annexure R-1 with the written statement. It has been further pointed out that on passing of the order dated April 16, 1981 by the Commissioner, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure with the writ petition, the various persons who were likely to be affected had submitted representations to the Financial Commissioner. In view of this position a reference was made to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab as well as to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, requesting that the orders of the Commissioner conveyed vide his memo dated April 16, 1981 ''be kept in abeyance till the decision of the representations filed by the affected officials''. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector in the Consolidation Department which is different from the post of a clerk. Consequently, he cannot claim benefit of service rendered by him as a Sub Inspector in the cadre of clerks. On these premises, the respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed with costs.