BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantive question of law sought to be raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the petitioner would be deemed to be a confirmed employee in view of the fact that he had completed maximum period of probation including extension, as provided by Rule 10 of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class II) Service Rules, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Service Rules'). He has challenged order dated 1.12.2003/2.1.2004 (P-7) reverting him from the post of Secretary, Market Committee to that of Assistant Secretary and also order dated 13.9.2004/23.11.2004 (P-8) dismissing his appeal by the Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab. The petitioner has claimed that he is entitled to work on the post of the Secretary, Market Committee, to which he was promoted and he may be paid salary with effect from the date he was promoted as Secretary on 25.2.2000.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis in the Punjab Mandi Board-respondent No. 2 (for brevity, 'the Board') as Assistant Secretary in the year 1979. His services were regularised on 24.2.1983. However, he has been officiating on the post of Secretary from 1982 to 2000. In the seniority list of Assistant Secretary, the name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 24, which is ahead of the name of Shri Harinder Singh Randhawa, who was at Sr. No. 25. Both of them were eligible for promotion to the post of Secretary, Market Committee. Shri Harinder Singh Randhawa, who was junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Secretary was promoted on 30.3.1995 and the case of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion on account of the fact that the petitioner was facing charge-sheet under Rule 8 of the Punjab Agricultural Marketing Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Punishment and Appeal Rules') for infliction of major penalty. On 24.7.1995/9.8.1995, the Chairman of the Board dropped the proceedings against the petitioner (P-1). It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner was facing charges of absence from duty which ranged from 4 to 5 days absence and on merit also he was either found on earned leave or casual leave after obtaining sanction which he over stayed on account of floods in the area.

(3.) After dropping of charge-sheet, the petitioner made numerous representations to various authorities for consideration of his case for promotion. He eventually filed a revision petition before the Additional Secretary to Government Punjab, under Section 42 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. In his order dated 4.10.1999 (P-2), the Additional Secretary holding the petitioner senior to Shri Harinder Singh Randhawa, issued direction to the Board to consider his case for promotion with effect the date Shri Harinder Singh Randhawa was promoted. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Secretary, Market Committee, vide order dated 25.2.2000 (P-3), without giving him promotion from a retrospective date of 30.3.1995 when person junior to him Shri Harinder Singh Randhawa was promoted. He again filed a revision petition before the Additional Secretary which is stated to be pending. The petitioner was not granted the salary of the post of Secretary, Market Committee for which representation was made on 27.4.2000 (R-3A). It is claimed that despite the direction issued by the District Mandi Officer to the Secretary of the Board to grant him pay scale of the post of Secretary, the petitioner was not given the salary of Secretary, Market Committee.