Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 277 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. State

2006-02-02

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment J. S. Khehar, J. 1. The petitioners are members of a feeder cadre to the posts of block Development and Panchayat Officers. All the petitioners were allowed current duty charge against the posts of Block Development and Panchayat officers vide order dated 8.8.2002. It is also the contention of the petitioners that they have continued to discharge duties on the posts of Block development and Panchayat Officers ever since August,2002. Additionally, it is pointed that while holding current duty charge on the posts of Block development and Panchayat Officers, they were also exercising powers of drawing and disbursing Officers. 2. The respondents took a policy decision not to allow the posts of block Development and Panchayat Officers to be filled up on current duty charge basis. In fact, it was decided to vest additional charge of the posts lying vacant to those persons who had substantively been promoted to the posts of Block Development and Panchayat Officers. The aforesaid decision was taken by the respondents on 13.1.2006. The petitioners approached this court by impugning the order dated 13.1.2006. Noticing the fact that the petitioners have been discharging uninterrupted duties of the posts of Block Development and Panchayat officers since August,2002, this Court passed an interim order on 17.1.2006 directing the respondents not to disturb the present status qua the petitioners as it existed on that date. 3. A joint written statement on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been filed in the interregnum. Pleadings are complete and,therefore, in terms of our order dated 24.1.2006, the instant writ petition is being taken up for final disposal. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the petitioners were granted current duty charge strictly in order of their seniority from amongst various feeding cadres. It is also the case of the petitioners that they are drawing salaries against the posts on which they have been allowed current duty charge from the budget assigned to the posts of Block Development and Panchayat officers. That being so, it is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, that as and when regular process of selection is conducted for promotion to the posts of Block Development and Panchayat Officers, it is only the petitioners who are likely to be promoted to the said posts. 4. That being so, it is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, that as and when regular process of selection is conducted for promotion to the posts of Block Development and Panchayat Officers, it is only the petitioners who are likely to be promoted to the said posts. 4. As against the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioners,it is submitted by Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate general Haryana, on behalf of the respondents, that the State Government has taken a policy decision by which ad hoc arrangement of granting current duty charge to employees not substantively posted against the posts of Block development and Panchayat Officer is to be withdrawn. There can be no doubt that the policy decision taken by the respondents is commendable. However, there is merit in the claim of learned counsel for the petitioners, and for two reasons we are satisfied that they should not be disturbed from the present status vested in them. Firstly, because it is not seriously disputed at the hands of the respondents, in view of express pleadings in the writ petition that the petitioners were granted current duty charge as Block Development and panchayat Officers, on the basis of their over-all seniority in the feeder cadre. 5. Secondly, since the petitioners have rendered uninterrupted service for a period of almost four years, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to revert the petitioners specially when on the basis of their seniority, the petitioners will have a better chance viz. others for occupuying the posts which they are presently occupying. 6. In view of the above, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to complete the process of selection for regular promotion to the vacant posts of the cadre of Block Development and panchayat Officers, if any,as expeditiously as possible, and till such time, the aforesaid process is completed, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue to discharge their duties in the same manner as they have been doing since august,2002. Our direction will obviously be subject to the rider that they do not occupy cadre posts of Block Development and and Panchayat Officers in excess of the quotas assigned to the feeder cadre to which they belong. Our direction will obviously be subject to the rider that they do not occupy cadre posts of Block Development and and Panchayat Officers in excess of the quotas assigned to the feeder cadre to which they belong. In case the petitioners have been appointed in excess of the quota of their feeder cadre, it will be open to the respondents to revert them forthwith,as a necessary consequence of the impugned order. Illustratively, the petitioners may be occupying posts in the cadre of Block Development and Panchayat officers, which under the statutory rules, are required to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, no protection can be granted to such of the petitioners by our order. 7. In order to stake their claim, that such of the petitioners who occupy posts in the cadre of Block Development and Panchayat Officers, which are required to be filled up by way of direct recruitment,should be allowed to continue as such till the process of direct recruitment is conducted, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Shingara Chand and others Versus Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others, 2000 (2) Recent Services Judgments 317. Our pointed attention has been drawn to the following observations made therein:- "in the present case, the current-duty charge of the post of Sub divisional Engineers was given to non-official respondents vide orders dated 16.10.1998 and 22.10.1998 and even now, they are enjoying the status and are exercising powers as Sub Divisional engineers. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground to sustain the action of the official respondents to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate right or atleast legitimate expection of holding the higher posts of Sub Divisional Engineers. " 8. In fact, the protection granted by us to those of the petitioners who are occupying the posts of Block Development and Panchayat Officers on current duty charge basis was for the same reason and, intent as has been depicted by the observations of this Court in Shingara Chands case (supra), extracted above. We, however, find no justification in extending the benefit to the petitioners who are not occupying the posts which have to be filled up from the feeder cadre to which they belong. We, however, find no justification in extending the benefit to the petitioners who are not occupying the posts which have to be filled up from the feeder cadre to which they belong. As such,we are disinclined to accept the claim of such of the petitioners, who are occupying posts in excess of quota of the feeder cadre to which they belong. Disposed of accordingly.