SHAM LAL BANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner complains that his seniority in the cadre of Taxation Inspectors has been arbitrarily changed without the grant of any opportunity whatsoever. As a result, he has even been reverted from the post of Excise and Taxation Officer to that of Inspector. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) On December 9, 1968, the petitioner was appointed as Extension Educator (Family Planning) in the Department of Health. The Department of Excise and Taxation advertised certain posts of Inspectors in the year 1970. These posts were in the same scale of pay as the posts of Extension Educator i.e. Rs. 160-280. The petitioner applied for one of these posts. He was selected. On October 24, 1972, the petitioner was appointed as a Taxation Inspector. The petitioner continued to work as such till April, 1993, when he submitted a representation that his seniority in the cadre of Taxation Inspectors in the Department of Excise and Taxation be fixed by giving him the benefit of service rendered by him in the Health Department. Vide order dated December 9, 1993, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner accepted the petitioner's request and directed that his seniority shall be determined on the assumption that he had joined as an Inspector on December 9, 1968. A copy of the order passed in this behalf has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. As a consequence of the redetermination of seniority, the Government vide order dated May 4, 1994, directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Excise and Taxation Officer with effect from November 27, 1992, on ad hoc basis. This promotion was, however, subject to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the High Court in the cases which were pending at that time. Thereafter, vide order dated August 25, 1995, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner ordered that the seniority of Shri Sham Lal Bansal as Taxation Inspector should have been determined from the date of his direct recruitment i.e. 24.10.1972.......". Consequently, he reviewed the order dated December 9, 1993. He also observed that there is no need to give any opportunity to the petitioner as he had no legal right which was being affected. In pursuance of this order, the petitioner was ordered to be reverted from the post of Excise and Taxation Officer to that of Taxation Inspector vide order dated November 30, 1995. The petitioner impugns the orders dated August 25, 1995 and November 30, 1995, copies of which have been produced on the record as Annexures P-3 and P-4 with the writ petition. The petitioner prays that these orders be set aside.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim.