OM PARKASH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE RAJPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant Om Parkash was appointed as an Octroi peon in the Municipal Committee, Rajpura, on April 17, 1965. Vide order dated 16th August, 1971, Exhibit PW3/A he was promoted as an Assistant Pump Operator. Vide order dated 27th April, 1973 Ex. PW3/B he was confirmed in the said post. He was, however, reverted to the post of octroi peon vide order dated January 15, 1974 Ex. P.5 which was conveyed to him on 17th January, 1974. He thereafter made various requests to the Municipal Committee, Rajpura that he should be put back to the post of Assistant Pump Operator, but having failed to get any redress he filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the order dated January 15, 1974 was illegal. The defendant-respondents put in appearance and denied that Om Parkash had been promoted as Assistant Pump Operator and further explained that he had been only given additional duties for which he was not to be paid any additional allowance. It was further stated that the appellant had been appointed in place of one Yudhister Kumar whose services had been terminated and as Yudhister Kumar had filed a representation before the State Government which met with success and after he had been reinstated the appellant had ipso facto to be reverted in order to accommodate him.

(2.) Mr. Saini, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has urged that once the appellant had been confirmed on his post, as he admittedly had been, he was entitled to a notice before his reversion and that in any case if Yudhister Kumar had to be accommodated Gursewak Singh another Assistant Pump Operator who had been appointed as such on 30th August, 1972 after the services of Yudhister Kumar had been terminated on 29th September, 1972 should have been reverted being junior to the appellant.

(3.) Mr. Markan, the learned counsel for the respondent has, however, urged that the appellant had been appointed on a temporary basis as Assistant Pump Operator on 16th August, 1971 whereas Gursewak Singh having been appointed on a permanent basis on 30th August, 1972 and, as such, he had to be retained in preference to the appellant.