KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the order dated February 15, 2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Public Works Department, Public Health Branch (respondent No. 2) whereby representation of Gurmeet Singh alias Kuldeep Singh -I was accepted and he had been appointed in the Head Office of the respondent-Department with retrospective effect i.e from January 08, 1992. The petitioner was working as Clerk on regular basis in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Limited (for short ' the HSMITC') since 1986. In the year 1990.

(2.) XXX XXX XXX.

(3.) The was declared surplus along with other employees of the HSMITC, including respondent No. 4 and was transferred to the department of Public Works (Public Health) vide Office Order dated April 18, 1990 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the petitioner being a Matriculate with First Division and Graduate, was absorbed in the Head Office Cadre of the Public Works Department (Public Health Branch), Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1) vide order dated January 08, 1992 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No. 4, being a Matriculate with Second Division was, absorbed as Officiating Clerk in the Public Works Department (Public Health Branch) in the Circle Cadre (field cadre) vide order dated February 11, 1993 (Annexure P-3). It was clearly mentioned in the order Annexure P-3 that seniority of respondent No. 4 would be reckoned with effect from the date of issue of this order for his permanent absorption in the respondent - Department and that he would be given the benefit of previous service rendered in the HSMITC in the matter of fixation of pay and leave only and would not be permitted any benefit towards seniority. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 made a request that he should also be absorbed in the Head Office Cadre by giving relaxation in the educational qualification. Vide order dated July 26, 1994 (Annexure P-4), request of respondent No. 4 was accepted and he was absorbed in the Head Office Cadre on the condition that his seniority amongst the Clerks of Head Office Cadre would be reckoned from the date of issue of the said order and that no credit whatsoever would be allowed to him for service rendered by him on the Circle Cadre for the purpose of seniority in the Head Office Cadre. These terms and conditions were accepted by respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated July 28, 1994 (Annexure P-5). In spite of acceptance of terms and conditions vide Annexure P-5, respondent No. 4 kept on making representations that since he was senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Clerks in the HSMITC, therefore, he should be assigned seniority over and above him. One of his representations in this regard was rejected vide order dated July 26, 1999 (Annexure P-6). This order was not challenged by respondent No. 4. However, case of respondent No. 4 was again considered upon representation by him and the impugned order dated February 15, 2006 (Annexure P-7) was passed by respondent No. 2.