GOPAL SINGH Vs. H.R.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is with regard to his claim for seniority vis -à -vis private respondents No. 3 and 4.

(2.) THE petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers:

(3.) A bare perusal of the table given at the end of page -1 of the office order dated 7.5.2011, Annexure P -15, would go to show that the petitioner Sh. Gopal Dass, who figures at serial No. 11 and was directly recruited as Booking Clerk, was appointed as such on 12.6.1986. The same very table shows that private respondents No. 3 Sh. Pritam Chand and 4 Sh. Balram Puri (Sr. Nos. 2 and 3), who were initially appointed as conductors on 15.7.1977 and were later on rendered surplus, were absorbed against vacant posts of Booking Clerks in terms of the aforesaid absorption policy of surplus conductors issued vide Annexure P -2, dated 10.9.1984, on 14.11.1986, that is, when the petitioner was already borne on the cadre of Booking Clerks with effect from 12.6.1986. Thus both the private respondents No. 3 and 4, who were absorbed in the cadre of Booking Clerks only on 14.11.1986 would certainly figure below the existing employees in the posts/category of their absorption/transfer including the petitioner. Thus, when the petitioner ranked senior to private respondents No. 3 and 4 in the entry level cadre of Booking Clerks, he would also rank senior to them in the promotional posts/cadres. However, instead, as per office order dated 7.5.2011, Annexure P -15, he has been assigned seniority at serial No. 49 much below private respondents No. 3 and 4, who figure therein at serial Nos. 37 -A -1 and 37A as is apparent from the last column of the table given below para 4 of office order dated 7th May, 2011, Annexure P -15, in utter disregard to clauses (iii) and (iv) of the Policy of absorption issued vide Annexure P -2, dated 10.9.1984.