MOHINDER PAL Vs. REGISTRAR COOP. SOCIETIES PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of writ in the name of certiorari to quash impugned order dtd. 31/3/2015 (Annexure P-8), owing to which the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted, was declined. A mandamus has been sought directing respondents to promote the petitioner and to grant him consequential benefits along with interest.

(2.) Succinctly, the factual matrix is that the petitioner was appointed as Gate Clerk with the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (for brevity, Markfed) in the year 1989. Initially, he joined at District Office, Nawanshehar, but later was transferred to Sri Muktsar Sahib. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 1/11/1992. It is the case of the petitioner that the employees working in the District Office/ Head Office formed a common cadre and are governed by Common Cadre Rules, 1990, which were framed after taking necessary sanction from the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, to regulate the service conditions of the employees. The grouse of the petitioner is that despite rendering 26 years of unblemished service, he was not given promotion to the next post even though persons junior to him were given the benefit of promotion from time to time. The petitioner made representations and caused a legal notice, but the same were not adverted to by the respondents. However, with the intervention of this Court, a direction was issued to respondent No.2 in CWP No. 22668 of 2014 filed by the petitioner, to pass a speaking order on the representation dtd. 9/11/2012 (Annexure P-5) and legal notice dtd. 13/11/2013, (Annexure P-6). Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dtd. 31/3/2015(Annexure P-8) and rejected the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 in an arbitrary manner has rejected his claim. The pay scale and nature of duties of a common cadre Clerk and a Plant Clerk are same. Plant Clerk cannot be discriminated against merely because he is from a Plant Cadre. It is averred that initially Common Cadre Rules were made applicable to Plant Cadre employees, but withdrawn lateron, leading to a lis before the Industrial Tribunal, wherein the order withdrawing the applicability of Common Cadre Rules was set aside and the previous position was restored. The respondents unsuccessfully challenged the Tribunal award before this Court but the findings of Industrial Tribunal were upheld. The petitioner has also placed reliance on an affidavit dtd. 25/7/1999, filed by respondent No.2, stating therein that the pay scales of Clerks of Plant Cadre and Common Cadre are same. Irrespective, the respondent No.2 erred in not extending the benefit of promotion to him, avers the petitioner.