Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 68 (PNJ)

Jagjit Rai Jindal v. State of Punjab and Another

2014-01-10

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. Aggrieved of order dated 11.10.1995 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Chief Engineer (Drainage), Irrigation Department, Punjab respondent No. 2 whereby order dated 18.02.1994 regularizing his services with effect from his initial appointment on adhoc basis had been withdrawn, by this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the said order to be quashed. The petitioner has also sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to place him in the seniority list taking as regular with effect from 23.11.1977 that is the date of his initial appointment on adhoc basis. The petitioner had joined initially as Draftsman on ad-hoc basis at Anandpur sahib Hydel Project on 23.11.1977. Services of the petitioner alongwith four others were regularized w.e.f. 23.11.1977 in pursuance of order dated 31.01.1994 (Annexure P-3). He was promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman vide order dated 31.01.1995 (Annexure P-5). Posting orders of 20 persons other than the petitioners, were issued on 14.04.1995 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner approached this court vide CWP No. 6064 of 1995. On 25.05.1995 vide order (Annexure P-6) promotion orders of the petitioner were cancelled whereafter he was reverted to his original post of Draftsman. During pendency of this writ petition, order dated 25.05.1995 was also challenged. 2. Observing that the earlier order of regularization of services of the petitioner with effect from his initial joining on 23.11.1977 had not been withdrawn, his seniority at Sr. No. 584 was taken to be intact. The writ petition was, thus, disposed on 01.08.1995 vide order (Annexure P-8). 3. Thereafter on 11.10.1995 order (Annexure P-9) was made by respondent No. 2 whereby initial order dated 31.01.1994 with regard to regularization of services of the petitioner from the date of his initial joining on adhoc basis that is with effect from 23.11.1977 was withdrawn and instead his services were ordered to be regularised with effect from 01.10.1980. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Stand of the respondents is that date of joining of the petitioner viz. 23.11.1977 on adhoc basis cannot be taken to be the date of regularization of services of the petitioner. Elaborating this aspect further it is mentioned that as per policy of the Government, adhoc services rendered by an employee is not to be counted towards regularization. It is claimed that the impugned order was rightly passed. 23.11.1977 on adhoc basis cannot be taken to be the date of regularization of services of the petitioner. Elaborating this aspect further it is mentioned that as per policy of the Government, adhoc services rendered by an employee is not to be counted towards regularization. It is claimed that the impugned order was rightly passed. Validity and legality of regularization of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.1980 is asserted. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length while going through the paper book. 6. Pursuant to the appointment order dated 17.11.1977 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner had joined the post of a Draftsman on 23.11.1977. In the seniority list, name of the petitioner stood at Sr. No. 738. In the final seniority list, name of the petitioner appeared at two places, one at Sr. No. 738 and the other at Sr. No. 584. It was an inadvertent mistake as date of his joining on adhoc basis was construed to be regular joining. 7. By no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that date of his initial joining on adhoc basis, was the date of regular joining and, thus, clearly name of the petitioner at Sr. No. 584 was wrongly figured and in fact it was rightly figured at Sr. No. 738. Date of regularization of his services was accordingly taken to be 01.10.1980. When services of the petitioner were regularized only on 01.10.1980, taking benefit of wrong entry of his name having appeared at Sr. No. 584 as well, the petitioner had been suppressing the material facts for seeking benefit of adhoc service rendered by him towards his seniority, which request being contrary to the instructions dated 15.03.1962 (Annexure R-1) of the respondents was rightly rejected vide the impugned order. 8. It is, thus, clear that entry of name of the petitioner and of some other draftsmen in the seniority list wrongly taking the date of their initial appointment on adhoc basis to be the date of regularization of their services, was apparently taken inadvertently and was also contrary to the instructions of the Punjab Government. Such wrong entry at Sr. No. 584 does not enure for benefit of the petitioner or for other employees as the order on the basis of such entries had been made, by taking the wrong facts. 9. Such wrong entry at Sr. No. 584 does not enure for benefit of the petitioner or for other employees as the order on the basis of such entries had been made, by taking the wrong facts. 9. It also transpires that representation dated 14.08.1995 of the petitioner had duly been considered in terms of the order of this court passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6064 of 1995. Speaking orders were accordingly passed on 17.10.1995. Latest instructions of the respondents are of 17.11.1995 (Annexure R-2) which leave no manner of doubt that adhoc service is not to be counted towards regularization of services. 10. It is abundantly clear by now that the name of the petitioner in the seniority list at Sr. No. 738 had correctly been entered in the seniority list. As per his date of regularization of service w.e.f. 01.10.1980 appearance of his name at Sr. No. 584 was wrong. Thus, reversion of the petitioner was correctly made as name of the petitioner was correctly found at Sr. No. 738 in the seniority list and was wrongly recorded at Sr. No. 584. In short, the petitioner joined his services on adhoc basis on 23.11.1977, which could not be the date of his regularization. In fact services of the petitioner were regularized on 01.10.1980. The impugned order having been made after following the principles of natural justice and after providing an opportunity being heard to all concerned does not suffer from any vitiating circumstances. 11. Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 01.08.1995 (Annexure P-8) passed in CWP No. 6064 of 1995 is as under:-- Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order in favour of the petitioner dated January 1994 (copy at Annexure P-3) giving him the date of appointment as November 23, 1977 has not been superseded so far. In this view of the matter, this date, as observed above, has to be taken as the date of appointment of the petitioner for all intents and purposes. However, this will not debar the State Government or the competent authority to change this date of appointment in accordance with law and complying with the rules of natural justice. Till that is done, the date of appointment of the petitioner has to be taken as November 23, 1977. However, this will not debar the State Government or the competent authority to change this date of appointment in accordance with law and complying with the rules of natural justice. Till that is done, the date of appointment of the petitioner has to be taken as November 23, 1977. Consequently, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been appointed on November 23, 1977 on regular basis as per order, Annexure P-3, and grant him all consequential benefits ensuing therefrom by ignoring order dated September 21, 1988 (Copy at Annexure P-2) so far as it relates to the petitioner. Resultantly, the seniority list at Annexure P-2 where the petitioner has been shown at Sr. No. 738, is quashed qua the petitioner. 12. Reading of orders (Annexure P-8) of Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in relation to the attending facts and circumstances as those emerge from the paper book, it is clear that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands as no disclosure had been made by him that his name also appeared in the seniority list at Sr. No. 738. 13. Notice (Annexure R-1) had been issued to all concerned. Sequelly, the petitioner is not to be taken in regular service from the date of his adhoc appointment, it being against instructions (Annexure R-1 and R-2). The impugned order dated 11.10.1995 (Annexure P-9) has been passed in terms of those instructions and after providing opportunity of being heard. In regard to the matter in dispute, reference may also be made to the authorities State of Punjab and others v. Surjit Kaur, 2011(3) SCT 328, Amar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others 2012(2) PLR 287, Saroj Gupta v. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others 2008 (4) SLR 42 (P&H) and State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association 2000 (4) SCT 664. 14. Viewed from any angle, claim of the petitioner has no merit. The civil writ petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed. This Civil Writ Petition is, consequently, dismissed.