PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a Patwari Mahal, working in District Ambala (Haryana State). In 1965, Patwaris in Ambala District became surplus. Consequently, the petitioner along with Roshan Lal, Amrit Lal, Ram Rakha and Munna Lal, was ordered to work in Gumrang Circle, Tehsil Lahaul, District Spiti at Keylong, now in Himachal Pradesh, where he continued working as such till 1st November, 1966, when as a result of the passing of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the Punjab State was reoganised and four successor States were carved out of it. Despite repeated enquiries made by the petitioner from the authorities concerned, the petitioner was not informed for a long time about his provisional allocation to any of the successor States. However, by a letter, dated 23rd November, 1967 (copy Annexure 'A' to the writ petition), the Director, Land Records, Haryana, informed the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, that the petitioner along with Mangat Ram and Ram Rakha be absorbed in Ambala District. Despite this letter, no orders of the petitioner's absorption in Ambala District were passed. Thereupon, the petitioner sent a detailed telegram to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Ambala, on 12th December, 1967, requesting him to intimate about his allocation. The Deputy Commissioner by his telegram, dated 18th December, 1967 (Annexure 'B') informed the petitioner that he stood allocated to Haryana. The Deputy Commissioner in June, 1968, ordered that the petitioner be posted as Naib Patwari in Tehsil Jagadhri. Petitioner was then transferred to and posted as Patwari at Panjokhra Circle by a order, dated 26th August, 1968. During all this period, at no stage was the petitioner informed about any proposal to allocate him to the State of Himachal Pradesh till he suddenly received the order, dated 24th April, 1969, from the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Ambala, directing the petitioner to report for duty to the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, since he stood allocated to Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner impugns this order, dated 24th April, 1969 (Annexure 'E') as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, inter alia, on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, inasmuch as the petitioner has been denied his legal right to represent against his allocation.

(2.) In the return, Respondent 2 (Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Ambala) has stated that on reorganisation, the petitioner was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is, however, not denied that he was never informed about that provisional allocation till the making of the impugned order. It is, however, added that since at the time of the reorganisation the petitioner was serving in Himachal Pradesh and had been allocated to that State, it was incumbent on that State to intimate the petitioner about his allocation. The issue of the letter, dated 23rd November, 1967, by the Director of Land Records addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, is admitted, but it is denied that this letter had anything to do with his allocation to Haryana. Strangely enough, the respondent had denied that the original telegram, dated 18th December, 1967 (Annexure B). informing the petitioner that he stood allocated to Haryana, was ever issued by the respondent's office. This denial is based on the ground that "there is nothing on the record to show the despatch of such a telegram". At the same time, it is admitted that in June, 1968, orders were passed by the respondent posting the petitioner in Ambala District. It is however, pleaded that this was due to a clerical mistake that the name of the petitioner was shown on the list of Patwaris allocated to Ambala District.

(3.) No separate return has been filed on behalf of the Collector, Simla (Respondent 3), State of Himachal Pradesh (Respondent 4) and the Union of India (Respondent 5).