WRIT PETITION 14364 of 1991 on 1 March 1979

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. S. S. Pattar, Sr.DAG, Haryana,for the State.

None for respondent Nos.3 to 8.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)

Mr.Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner isapparently flogging a dead horse. The claim of the petitioner, who isno more, is not only pressed hard despite knowing that even tworespondents, against whom, he was claiming seniority, are also died.

The seniority claim of the late petitioner, which is beingpursued by his L.Rs, is made out the ground of his appointment inthe regular service. It appears that the petitioner as well as therespondents were initially appointed as Computor in the pay scale of

Rs.110-225 in the Directorate of Land Records, Haryana. He joinedthe duties on 18.9.1978. Subsequently, however, he was absorbed inthe respondent-office w.e.f 1.3.1979. Though the petitioner wouldmake reference to various Government notifications but the factremains that he was regularised w.e.f 15.9.1982. Like him, theprivate respondents, except respondent No.6, were also regularisedwith effect from 15.9.1982. The services of respondent No.6 wereregularised on 1.4.1985. The grievance of the petitioner is that thedate of regularisation of the private respondents was subsequentlychanged to 1.1.1980.

The counsel would contend that the petitioner was seniorto the private respondents and on the basis of his seniority asdetermined in the seniority list issued, he was granted the selectiongrade, which was allowed to 15% of the posts, in order of seniority.In view of the subsequent change of date of regularisation of theprivate respondents to 1.1.1980, the petitioner became junior to theprivate respondents and accordingly the selection grade, which wasallowed to him, was withdrawn. Accordingly, the payment which wasmade to him, was also withdrawn.

The record would show that when the petitioner wasshown senior to the private respondents, they had filed a civil suit,which was allowed. The petitioner not only filed an appeal against thejudgment passed by the Civil Court but also filed present writ petition,which he claims to have filed prior to coming to know of the filing ofCivil Court. Apparently, the petitioner has pursued two remedies. Hisappeal filed against the judgement rendered by the Trial Court wasallowed only on the ground that he had challenged the seniority in the writ petition.

Conclusion

Mr. Som Nath Saini, though is not representing theprivate respondents in the writ petition but is appearing for theappellant in connected S.A.O. No.22 of 1996, which is beingdisposed of alongwith the present writ petition. On the basis ofrecord of S.A.O as well as other Civil Writ Petition Nos.8002 of 1999and 21603 of 2008, Mr.Saini would point out that by no stretch ofimagination, the petitioner would rank senior to the privaterespondents. He would point out that the petitioner was appointedwith effect from 18.9.1978, whereas the private respondents wereappointed as Computor on 1.12.1977. The petitioner was absorbedin the respondent-Department with effect from 1.3.1979 whereas theprivate respondents were so absorbed with effect from 1.1.1979. It isin view of this seniority that the private respondents were regularisedwith effect from 1.1.1980 whereas the petitioner being junior to themwas so regularised with effect from 15.1.1982. Because of theseniority, the private respondents had prior right for regularisation oncompletion of two years of service and, thus, the policy dated1.1.1980 was applicable for their regularisation.

The petitioner has no basis to make a claim of seniorityeither on the basis of date of appointment or on the date ofregularisation or even on the basis of date of his absorption. Takingthe case from any angle, the private respondents always remainedsenior to him and were so regularised on 1.1.1980. Otherwise also,there is no issue left to be decided in this case in view of the death ofthe petitioner as well as two of the respondents. The selection gradewas required to be granted on the basis of seniority to the 15% of the

posts and accordingly this was rightly withdrawn from the petitioner.

There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition. The same isaccordingly dismissed. However, since the petitioner was grantedthis selection grade and he had not made any misrepresentation, therecovery can not be effected from the L.Rs of the petitioner.

The consequence of this order would be that S.A.O No.22of 1996 filed by Charan Singh would have to be allowed and thejudgment passed by the first Appellate Court shall stand reversedand the Trial Court order restored. It is so ordered.

May 10, 2010 khurmi

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE